The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Personal Statement

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the first item of business, I advise the House that I have received a request from Mr Ian Paisley Jnr, seeking to make a personal statement to the House. I stress that this is a personal, not a ministerial, statement.
I have agreed to Mr Paisley’s request, and I will call him to make his statement in a moment. Before I do so, however, I remind Members of the conventions under which the statement will be made.
A personal statement is not subject to intervention or debate. Where a statement relates to a Member’s resignation from Government, as it does in this case, I will allow those party leaders — or their representatives — who wish to comment on the statement an opportunity to do so. However, each leader’s comments should be brief and should reflect the length of the statement itself.
If that is clear, I call Mr Paisley Jnr to make his personal statement.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to inform the Assembly that today I wrote to the First Minister, informing the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) of my resignation from the Government.
I want to place on record that I have been honoured to serve this country and, indeed, honoured to serve under the leadership of the First Minister in particular. I leave with high hopes, in good spirit, with deep humility and with gratefulness in my heart. Thank you.

Ian Paisley: As the First Minister, on behalf of members of my office and of those of the deputy First Minister’s office, I would just like to say a word of thanks to my son Ian for the hard work he did while he was in office. We wish him well in the future.

Gerry Adams: Go raibh míle maith agat. I also wish the Member well. He and his father played a key role in the work to restore these institutions and to bring unionism into this process. Undoubtedly, there would not be any working political institutions at this time without the leadership of the Paisley family, and they deserve credit for that.
Of course, there are questions to be answered about the issues that led to the Member’s resignation. Sad though it is for the Member and his family, the matter also serves to highlight the unacceptable behaviour of some parties and Members. Sinn Féin will seek to end certain practices, including that whereby Members can use public moneys to rent properties from family members. Public confidence is essential —

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that he must keep his comments to the statement.

Gerry Adams: Public confidence is essential, and the public is entitled to expect the highest standards from everyone in public life. We have a responsibility to ensure that that is the case.
I wish the Member well, and I commend him for the leadership role that he has taken and for the work that he has brought to all of us here.

Mr Speaker: No other party leaders have indicated that they wish to speak — I am sorry — I call Mr Durkan.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I note Mr Paisley’s expression of deep humility. I welcome that, because we all know the saying that pride comes before a fall. There was some evidence of vanity in some of the statements that were made last week, so I welcome today’s expression of humility.
We all know the issues and the circumstances that mounted up to lead to this resignation. Although those matters might be addressed, we should all have the good grace to reflect on the fact that Mr Paisley obviously did good work during his time in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and that he made other positive contributions.

David Ford: I, too, recognise that in the manner of his resignation statement, Mr Paisley has redeemed a little of what went before. It is clear that the Executive will have to address many issues to ensure that we do not run into similar problems in the future with other Ministers and to ensure that the highest standards of probity are maintained. However, the manner of Mr Paisley’s resignation may mean that that will happen.

Mr Speaker: Order. No other party leader has indicated that he or she wants to speak, so I will move on.

Executive Committee Business

Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Royal Assent

Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 became law on 25 February 2008.

Ministerial Statement

British-Irish Council Summit

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that the First Minister wishes to make a statement on the British-Irish Council (BIC) summit.

Ian Paisley: In compliance with the requirements of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we wish to make the following report on the tenth summit meeting of the British-Irish Council, which was held in Dublin on 14 February 2008. All Northern Ireland Ministers who attended the summit have approved the report, which we also make on their behalf.
The Irish Government hosted the summit in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. The heads of delegations were welcomed by the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. The British Government delegation were led by the Rt Hon Paul Murphy, Secretary of State for Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government were represented by the First Minister, the Rt Hon Rhodri Morgan, and the Scottish Executive by the First Minister, the Rt Hon Alex Salmond. The States of Guernsey Government were represented by the Chief Minister, Mike Torode, and the States of Jersey Government by the Chief Minister, Senator Frank Walker. The Isle of Man Government were represented by the Chief Minister, Tony Brown.
In addition to the deputy First Minister, junior Ministers and I, the Northern Ireland delegation comprised the Minister of Education, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Minister for Social Development.
A full list of the participants is attached to the statement provided to Members.
The British-Irish Council meeting was the second since the restoration of the institutions last May. The Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, chaired the meeting, which focused on the misuse of drugs; the strategic review of the British-Irish Council; and a report on progress in the various BIC sectoral areas.
The Irish Government lead the sectoral discussion on the misuse of drugs. Problem drug use is a complex and difficult issue — it affects all member Administ­rations, and was a particular focus of the summit discussion. The misuse of drugs can have a devastating effect on the family, and the Council discussed the importance of supporting families to overcome the problems that they face and the role that families can play in the rehabilitation process. The Council reflected on the impacts of problem drug use on families and how those could be used in the development of drug and/or alcohol strategies. We discussed the need to further develop advice and guidance for families, and to improve support to families in dealing with drugs treatment and rehabilitation processes.
The Council recognised the importance of strategies to reduce the potential harm to the children of problem drug users. The Council also considered ways to utilise the potential of families as agents for drug-use recovery. Ministers agreed to include a renewed focus on the families of problem drug users in any future drug strategies, with a view to providing increased support to those families, and to better harness their potential to facilitate life improvements for problem drug users.
At the last summit meeting in Belfast, it was agreed to undertake a strategic review of the Council, and to consider work programmes, working methods and support arrangements, including those for a standing secretariat. That work was taken forward by the British-Irish Council secretariat in liaison with the member Administrations, and an interim report was considered by Ministers at the summit.
The Council recognised the potential for the British-Irish Council to strengthen relations between member Administrations and welcomed the interim report of the strategic review. Specifically, the Council noted the progress to date, including the consensus that a standing secretariat be a single, co-located model. Ministers tasked the current secretariat, in liaison with the member Administrations, to proceed with further detailed work on the governance, staffing, location, costing and funding of a standing secretariat.
Ministers noted the current work programme of the Council and agreed to further consideration by member Administrations that would take into account the review of the existing work sectors and possible new areas of work. In considering those possible new areas of work, the First Minister for Wales reported that the early-years policy was a wide-ranging area. It touched on issues of education, social care, children’s rights, social inclusion and economic advantage. Although there was considerable diversity across the BIC Administrations in the approach to early-years provision, through sharing policy, practice and research, there could be a shared commitment to ensure that every child has the best possible start in life.
The Scottish First Minister, proposing energy as a new work stream, highlighted key goals and challenges that must be faced by all member Administrations. Those include the need to reduce emissions, to ensure security of energy supplies by fostering a diverse and competitive energy market, and to deliver energy at a price that is affordable for individuals and businesses.
On behalf of the Executive, our delegation raised the important issue of child protection and reported on the debate on the subject in this Assembly in October 2007. The Council agreed that child protection is vital, that it is essential to build on the existing arrangements between the member Admin­istrations, and to consider how child protection measures could be further developed through enhanced collaboration and co-operation.
We also raised the growing problem of suicide among young people, following a significant increase in the number of suicides. We raised concerns about the negative impact that some websites and Internet chat rooms can have on people at times of crisis in their lives.
The Council agreed that officials should consider the inclusion of early-years policy, energy and child protection — including the growing problem of suicide among young people — in the BIC work programme. It should also consider how best those should be led in the course of the review of BIC.
The Council also discussed and noted the current working methods of BIC. It agreed that the matter should be considered further in order to facilitate effective and dynamic working arrangements and to explore methods of raising the profile of the Council, including the development of the BIC website. In concluding that discussion, the Council tasked the secretariat, in liaison with member Administrations, to report back with final recommendations on the strategic review at the next summit in Scotland. The meeting noted the ongoing work of the British-Irish Council and progress across the range of work sectors, and looked forward to a full and active programme of work for the coming year.
The Council noted the recent meeting of Environ­ment Ministers in Northern Ireland, and welcomed plans for a number of ministerial meetings in other sectors in the first half of 2008. It noted, in particular, progress in the various BIC sectoral areas, including drug misuse, the environment, the knowledge economy, social inclusion, tourism, health, minority and lesser-used languages, and demography.
In relation to transport, which is led by Northern Ireland, all parties remain committed to the intro­duction, as soon as possible, of arrangements for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between Ireland and the United Kingdom. In addition, work is under way on potential areas for UK-Ireland co-operation in the mutual recognition of lesser infringements of road traffic law, including possible penalty-point recognition between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The British-Irish Council is also examining the potential to share research on drink- and drug-driving with a view to developing best practice and sharing campaign research and publicity strategies across member Administrations.
The member Administrations are also working together to share information and experience in the area of accessible transport and to explore issues of common interest in relation to sustainable travel.
BIC is also examining transport links between Admin­istrations in recognition of the economic importance of key strategic connections.
The next BIC summit will be hosted by the Scottish Government in September 2008, at a venue to be announced.

Danny Kennedy: I welcome the First Minister’s statement. Will he confirm that he is content for his officials to brief the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the interim report of the strategic review of the British-Irish Council? That is important to the Committee.
Wearing my party-political hat, I wish to make some further points. The Northern Ireland Executive delegation appeared to be the largest at the BIC summit. There were reasons for that, of course, on which the First Minister may wish to comment.
I welcome the discussion on the problems that are associated with drug and alcohol addiction. Does the First Minister agree with the deputy First Minister’s comments at his press conference after the BIC summit, which highlighted the power of the media? The deputy First Minister criticised television soap operas such as ‘EastEnders’ and ‘Coronation Street’ for their potentially harmful effect on impressionable people.
Does the First Minister envisage that those concerns will be raised with the broadcasting authorities? Will those concerns include the depiction of violence on television? Will the First Minister outline how BIC officials intend to deal with the grave issue of teenage suicide and the effects of websites and Internet chat rooms?

Ian Paisley: I welcome discussions with the honourable gentleman’s Committee. I will facilitate such a meeting with the relevant officials to ensure that matters of concern are examined thoroughly. That would be profitable for all concerned.
My attitude to drink is well known. I do not partake of it, and I do not relish it. However, the deputy First Minister is responsible for his own language, and he can defend himself. It is sad that propaganda-style programmes, which are available for public viewing, sell the notion that a boy becomes a man once he can drink well. That is a tragedy, and we should set our faces against encouraging young people to take the road of drinking, especially in the way that it is practised by many young people today. We have a responsibility to display our attitude and lead by example.
The matters raised by the honourable Member are important. It is appropriate that any Minister who has an interest in the summit’s agenda has a right to attend that summit — and should attend it. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, who is a member of Mr Kennedy’s party, attended the previous summit and made valuable contributions to discussions on children and the menace of suicide, which is such a relevant consideration today.
It is justifiable for Ministers to take time off to attend those important meetings. I am sure that the meetings are helpful to Ministers when they make Executive decisions.

Stephen Moutray: I thank the First Minister for his statement. Given the importance of the British-Irish Council’s role, will the First Minister indicate how the St Andrews commitment to the establishment of a standing secretariat is being met?
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

Ian Paisley: The Member will be aware that the St Andrews Agreement provided that, after consultation and with the agreement of members, the two Governments would facilitate the establishment of a standing secretariat for the British-Irish Council. Having consulted member Administrations, I am pleased to report that a consensus supports the establishment of a standing secretariat. The proposal is that that would consist of a co-located team of staff who would work inclusively on the British-Irish Council, and BIC’s secretariat, in conjunction with member Admin­istrations, will now give further consideration to issues of governance, staffing, location, costing and funding. Those issues will come back for further discussion, and BIC, if it considers it appropriate, will point members on the right road. The matter is under intense scrutiny; I cannot comment any further than that.

Gerry Adams: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the First Minister for his statement. Tá mé buíoch díot. Suicide prevention was discussed at the summit, which is to be welcomed. Concerns were raised about the negative impact that some websites and Internet chat rooms can have on people at times of crisis in their lives. Will the First Minister indicate what measures are being contemplated to deal with that matter?

Ian Paisley: I am sorry, but I cannot give the Member any further information. The issue is being discussed at the highest possible level. No doubt, we will receive a communication, and the matter will be discussed at the next summit. Given the urgency of the matter, we need an immediate report. Everyone who is interested in suicide prevention should be cognisant of BIC’s views.

Mark Durkan: I thank the First Minister for his report and, through him, his ministerial colleagues for their work at the summit. I agree with the First Minister that the Northern Ireland Ministers who attended this important summit dealt with the range of subjects very well.
As far back as 2001-02, there was general agreement about the benefits of a standing secretariat for BIC, and I welcome progress on that issue.
Will future British-Irish Council summits be used as a means to address the issue of the misuse of prescription drugs, which is a growing problem that challenges all the Administrations?
Will higher-level transport issues be discussed, beyond driving disqualifications, such as the curbing of vehicles’ CO2 emissions?
Will future British-Irish Council summits consider marine management throughout these islands? The UK marine Bill will provide for a marine management organisation, and our Minister of the Environment has said that she wants discrete arrangements for Northern Ireland. The future of marine management should be discussed properly at British-Irish Council level, so that we have a common framework throughout these islands, because the marine environ­ment is something that all these islands share.

Ian Paisley: I believe that we will have a very considered look at the drugs problem, and that we will all share information as a result of what has been experienced by the co-members of the BIC. Therefore, we will have an overall look at a very important subject for parents bringing up children.
As regards the general co-operation, that will be helpful in all those areas mentioned by the honourable Member. All are very important, and I would not like to say that one was more important than another because they all need to be faced, and faced with the determination that these matters can be dealt with and can be cured. We are not facing a challenge that cannot be defeated. In the number of counsellors, an old book says, “there is safety”, so in the number of these counsellors, I think that there will be safety.

David Ford: I welcome the progress that has been made on the secretariat, and the introduction by Northern Ireland Ministers of child protection and suicide prevention into the discussions.
If I may, however, turn to transport, an area in which the First Minister highlighted that Northern Ireland takes the lead. I note that despite the large number of Ministers who attended the BIC summit, neither Mrs Foster nor Mr Murphy, the two responsible Ministers in this area, were present. Yet the First Minister tells us that it was right that any Minister with an interest should have been there. Is this why the statement is full of phrases such as: “as soon as possible”; “work is under way”; “examining the potential”; “share research”; “share information”; “explore issues”; and there is actually nothing specific?
In particular, given the total imbalance in public-private transport expenditure in this region, how can we possibly take a lead in issues such as sustainable travel?

Ian Paisley: Ministers, of course, answer to us all as to whether they go or stay. However, I am sure that those Ministers who were unable to be with us on that occasion had reasons due to important matters in their own Departments that needed their immediate attention. They have to justify their non-attendance themselves.
However, as I outlined in my statement, the Northern Ireland Administration lead on transport. The British-Irish Council is committed to introducing, as soon as possible, arrangements for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between Ireland and the UK. Work is also under way on potential areas of co-operation between the UK and Ireland on mutual recognition of the lesser infringe­ments of road traffic law, including possible recognition of penalty points between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The transport sector is also looking at links between Administrations in recognition of the economic importance of key strategic connections. Member Administrations are also working together to share information on accessible transport and sustainable travel. I am sure that we all wish them well as they do this very important work.

Mervyn Storey: The issue of the Ballycastle-Campbeltown ferry was discussed at a previous BIC summit in Belfast. Will the First Minister provide an update on the timetable for the completion of the options and economic appraisal of the restoration of the service?

Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Member wants to declare his interest in this matter, and I, too, declare my interest in it. Our officials are working with Scottish Government officials to deliver advice to respective Ministers on the outcome of the new options and economic appraisal.
That appraisal will examine the case for restoring the ferry service and, in particular, its feasibility and value for money. At the bilateral meeting in Scotland last week, a declaration was signed, giving a com­mitment to consider urgently the feasibility study on the possible reinstatement of the ferry service as soon as it is available. The options and economic appraisal are expected to be completed by late summer 2008, after which further decisions on the restoration of the ferry service will have to be made.

Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an ráiteas.
In considering progress in the various sectoral areas, including indigenous, minor and lesser-used languages, did the Council note the distinct absence of a strategy emanating from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure aimed at enhancing and promoting the Irish language, as provided for in the St Andrews Agreement? Like David Ford, I notice that the Ministers who were absent included Minister Edwin Poots — perhaps that is not surprising given the context.
Secondly, will the First Minister state whether the Council considered forging closer links with the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body (BIIPB)? I particularly commend a report from Committee D of BIIPB that considered the health inequalities being suffered by the Irish community in Britain.

Ian Paisley: Those matters were not discussed fully. Each person who made a contribution mentioned issues that were of concern to him or her. All I can say is that language is not really a matter that comes under the remit of BIC. There are other places where such matters can be discussed in full. I have no memory of the Council discussing language — every man spoke in his own tongue.

Jim Shannon: It is good to see that the British-Irish Council is strengthening and encouraging east-west relations, and that is proving fruitful. The First Minister mentioned a focus on the misuse of drugs. I welcome that focus, because drugs, and alcohol, constitute the biggest scourge of the modern age.
However, I would like to take a different angle as far as my question is concerned. What consideration is being given to developing new work sectors through BIC?

Ian Paisley: The interim report examined current and potential work sectors. Nine new work streams were established initially. However, given the changes in society and the new challenges faced by member Administrations, there is a need to reassess the strategic direction of the work streams and to ensure that they reflect the priorities of the member Administrations and offer the greatest possible co-operation. We believe that that is the way forward.

Tom Elliott: I thank the First Minister for his statement. There is a quite a bit of detail about children’s early-years provision. Were there any discussions concerning differences in legislation between, in particular, Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK as regards looked-after children? If so, has any provision been made for co-operation on such legislation?

Ian Paisley: Consideration was given to the matters that the honourable Member referred to, and they will be examined further. The report, when available, will point the way for the BIC in the matters that the Member has so wisely brought before the House today.

Alban Maginness: I emphasise the importance of those meetings; it is vital that we build good, solid relations among all the peoples of these islands. I obviously welcome the good work that was done at the Council and the fact that the First Minister and his colleagues discussed a wide range of issues.
However, one point in particular that I wish to raise is the Scottish First Minister’s proposal, which was mentioned in the First Minister’s statement, that energy issues be developed as a new area of work. The development and expansion of nuclear power as an energy source in Britain has caused great concern for people living in Ireland, North and South. Given that, did the First Minister or any of his colleagues raise that issue? If not, will he guarantee the House that if it is raised in the future, he will express those concerns about nuclear power on behalf of the Assembly and the Executive?

Ian Paisley: The honourable Member has his views on the matter; however, nuclear power is something that is entirely for the British Government to deal with. It is not a matter for us, and were we to raise it, we would no doubt be told politely to mind our own business. The battle on that issue must be fought through the United Kingdom Parliament; it is not a matter on which the BIC will be prepared to venture an opinion, because many of its members have the same problems with nuclear power as those that Mr Maginness raised.
Many European politicians probably think in the same way as the honourable Member, which is that their respective countries should each be doing something different on the matter. Therefore, I can give the Member no comfort on that score. The battle will be fought, and no doubt those who prevail in Government will prevail, and we will probably see further developments on the matter.
However, I emphasise that everyone who is concerned about this issue should be interested in the safety of the people in the areas in which they live. We all have a responsibility for that, and from that we cannot wash our hands.

Martina Anderson: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the First Minister for his statement, and, unlike David Ford, I welcome the fact that so many Executive Ministers attended the summit meeting. With that in mind, I congratulate the Executive. I also welcome the attendance at the meeting of Pat Carey, TD, who has responsibility in the Dáil for issues concerning drugs.
Problem drug use is difficult for families, and its associated complications have no social, economic or geographical borders, artificial or otherwise. Strategies to reduce the harmful impact that problem drug use can have on children are vital. Given that my Foyle constituency is located along the border corridor, what strategies are in place, particularly in the north-west, to deal with reducing the potential harm that problem drug use can cause to children?
The deputy First Minister informed the Chamber last week that the Northwest Gateway initiative needed to go through a step change. Perhaps that initiative and the Co-operation and Working Together (CAWT) scheme could be used as vehicles to implement strategies that would reduce the potential harm that the children of drug users in the north-west face.

Ian Paisley: As I said in my statement, the Council discussed the impact that problem drug use has on families and how we could take account of that impact in the development of drug and alcohol strategies. The Ministers agreed to include a renewed focus on the families of drug users in any future drug strategies, with a view to providing increased support to those families and to better harness their potential to facilitate life improvements for problem drug users. Therefore, we faced up to the matter.
However, with all member Administrations coming together to meet, the difficulty arises that, in such a broad group, they all want to get their tongue in. Therefore, representatives are unable to specify local problems. We must deal with issues in a wider capacity, so I cannot say how we might deal with specific, smaller matters that the bigger picture affects. However, those present at the summit faced up to the problems to which they needed to face up. If strategies are implemented and become reality, every part of the various countries and states that attended the summit — even the area that the honourable lady mentioned — will share in the benefits that accrue.

John Dallat: Several Members still wish to speak; therefore, I ask Members to keep their questions relatively short.

Jimmy Spratt: I, too, thank the First Minister for his statement on the British-Irish Council summit. What work is being undertaken to increase the level of east-west activity in order to put it on a par with North/South arrangements?

Ian Paisley: The North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the BIC now operate on a par. Since the establishment of the BIC, it has met on more than 200 occasions, including 10 times at summit level and 18 times at ministerial level. Member Administrations have a renewed interest in, and commitment to, the BIC’s work, which is reflected in its expanding work programme.
Considerable potential exists to develop and promote further the BIC’s positive and practical relationships, and we look forward to further enhancing east-west arrangements through the strategic review. Therefore, I tell my honourable friend that member Administrations are interested in the work of the BIC, and we are seeking to bring our force to bear in our arguments on matters that concern us in order to benefit Northern Ireland.

Willie Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Likewise, I thank the First Minister for his statement. One of the biggest scourges in all our communities throughout all the islands is cocaine use, not to mention cocaine abuse. Was the issue of cocaine use being perceived to be acceptable among the middle classes discussed at the BIC summit? If so, did any discussion take place on a strategy to combat the perceived acceptability of that drug?

Ian Paisley: All types of drug abuse were mentioned and considered. Those deliberations will be the subject of reports that will be presented at the next meeting at which those matters are discussed.
I am not in a position to say how the middle classes and the wealthy classes enjoy themselves or destroy themselves, so I shall have to leave that to the Member, but —

Jim Shannon: Do you belong to the wealthy classes, Willie? [Laughter.]

Ian Paisley: I did not mean it in that way. If Members twist what I say, I simply have to accept the twist and go on.
All that I can say to the honourable gentleman is that those are serious issues, especially for young people. We do not want a generation to grow up in Northern Ireland that is shackled with the follies of their younger days. We have a duty to provide guardianship in the crucial days that will determine the rest of their lives.

Simon Hamilton: I join in welcoming the First Minister’s statement. He will remember how he fought hard to improve the British-Irish Council’s role and to end its secondary status. Can he tell the Assembly what steps are being taken to ensure that those essential east-west linkages between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are being enhanced?

Ian Paisley: We have very strong links with the other regions of the UK. The British-Irish Council is playing a unique and important role in further promoting and developing those links through fostering positive, practical relationships and by providing a forum for consultation and co-operation. Since its inception, the Council has undertaken an extensive programme of work, and more than 200 meetings have been held, including 10 at summit level and 18 at ministerial level.
Since May last year, there has been increased activity, with some 33 BIC meetings, including two summits and a ministerial environment meeting. I am pleased to note significant bilateral engagement among Ministers and at official level. The Scottish Govern­ment have agreed to host the next summit in September, and the Welsh Assembly will host the summit in early 2009. Therefore, we are certainly making progress.

Roy Beggs: I thank the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for their statement. They have indicated that the British-Irish Council will assess transport links between Administrations, in recognition of the economic importance of those.
Transport is led by the Northern Ireland Admin­istration. Given that the next meeting of BIC will be hosted by the Scottish Executive, does the First Minister agree that that would be an opportune time to place a special focus on the road and rail links between Northern Ireland and Scotland — in particular, the improvements on the A8 Larne-to-Belfast road, the Larne-to-Belfast rail link, and, indeed, the links from Cairnryan, northward to Ayr and Glasgow, and eastwards to Carlisle?

Ian Paisley: I agree entirely that that is an important issue, and it is one that we will continue to address. Indeed, during a visit to Edinburgh recently, we had a lengthy discussion about transport. The Scottish people feel that a definite commitment is required to improve the roads that we use after leaving the ferry from Northern Ireland. They hope that those roads will be of such good order and availability that the entire experience of ferry travel will be improved, and people will be excited about driving on them.

Dominic Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad Aire as an ráiteas a thug sé dúinn anseo ar maidin. Ba mhaith liom a fhiafraí de — ainneoin na droch-chuimhne atá aige — an dtiocfadh leis mioneolas a thabhairt dúinn ar an dul chun cinn atá déanta i gcúrsaí mionteangacha agus teangacha neamhfhorleathana?
I, too, thank the First Minister for his statement. Despite his earlier bout of linguistic amnesia, could I ask him to detail the progress that he said has been made on minority and lesser-used languages? Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Ian Paisley: I have already covered that matter in the various statements that I have made today. The honourable Member is perhaps unhappy because all his needs have not been met. However, continual dripping wears away the stone — and he should keep at it. We are all frustrated at times when our brilliant suggestions are decried and rejected, but we must be patient.
I dare say that Rome was not built in a day, and that applies to the honourable Member’s vision for what he hopes to build. Of course, some people may be busy tearing down the building while the Member is creating it.

Michelle McIlveen: The First Minister mentioned that child protection was raised at the summit. Will he elaborate on those discussions and outline how progress will be made on that matter?

Ian Paisley: I am happy to do that. The Assembly held an important debate on child protection last October, and we raised the matter at the summit.
The deputy First Minister and I agree that children are our most important asset — they are our future, and we have a duty to protect them. We, therefore, believe that the review of the BIC provides us with an opportunity to consider the appropriateness of child protection as a new work area for the Council. We held a very useful discussion on that matter at the summit. The Council agreed that child protection is vital, and that it was essential to build on the arrangements that exist among the member Administrations.
We also raised the growing problem of suicide among young people, which I have mentioned previously. We discussed the significant increase in the number of suicides, and our concerns about the negative impact that some websites and Internet chat rooms could have on people at times of crisis in their lives.
The Council agreed that child protection was an important matter and that it was essential to build on the existing arrangements among Administrations and to ascertain how the issue could be further developed through enhanced collaboration and co-operation. The Council also agreed that, as part of the review, officials should consider the inclusion of child protection — including the growing problem of suicides among young people — in the BIC work programme.
I welcome the honourable lady’s question, and I hope that she will be satisfied with that reply.

Ministerial Statement

Outcome of Affordability Review

Mr Speaker: I have received notice that the Minister for Social Development wishes to make a statement on the outcome of the affordability review.

Margaret Ritchie: I wish to outline to the Assembly how I intend to deliver a range of actions that I believe will herald the beginning of a new housing agenda in Northern Ireland. I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to live in a decent, warm and affordable home. There can be no more fundamental right than having a roof over one’s head, and that is why I have made the alleviation of our housing crisis my foremost priority.
On my first day as Minister, I discovered that my Department had barely the resources to start 600 new houses this year, against a target of more than twice that. However, I have since secured an additional £70 million in the current year, and I am pleased to confirm that we are on track to start 1,500 homes this year. I have been given the money, and I am building the houses.
Inheriting an inadequate budget was one thing, but accepting one would have been quite another. The initial allocation for housing for the next three years in the draft Budget was not acceptable — that was fairly obvious. What was not so obvious, perhaps, was the real damage that would have been done to the social housing development programme if more resources had not been made available.
There were many people, some of whom are sitting in the Chamber, who told me to accept my lot and just get on with it. They failed to grasp that one cannot provide public housing without public money. I am thankful that — owing to my detailed analysis and the strength of the arguments that I made — I persuaded my Executive colleagues to increase the housing budget.
They recognise the substantial contribution that the housing programme makes to the construction sector and to the overall economy. I will leave it to others to determine whether an extra £205 million to tackle waiting lists, homelessness and affordability was worth fighting for. However, I do not think that that is such a bad return for my first nine months in office.
While trying to secure a better housing budget for the next three years, I used the time to assess the scale of the challenge. Today, there are more than 38,000 people on the waiting list; more than 20,000 people are in housing stress; more than 9,000 people are officially homeless; and average house prices are more than 10 times the average income. Those are staggering and unprecedented statistics, and that is why I sought radical and unprecedented solutions.
To deliver a new housing agenda, it was clear that I needed to deliver more innovative and imaginative solutions than ever before. I established an affordability review group to examine the recommendations arising from Sir John Semple’s study into affordable housing. I brought in a panel of independent housing experts representative of all interests across the public, private and voluntary sectors to identify priorities. To com­plement that work, I asked Baroness Margaret Ford, former chairperson of English Partnerships, to review the financial and economic options for better delivery of social and affordable housing in Northern Ireland. That work is now complete, and I shall outline some of the measures that I am preparing to implement.
I have developed an implementation plan that identifies who, how and when each of the recom­mendations in the Semple Report will be advanced. Sir John Semple made 80 recommendations and work on half of those will be under way — some even delivered — by April. I will bring those details to the Executive Committee for approval.
I am grateful to the expert panel for its insights and for its unanimous report, and I will act on some of its key recommendations. I am also grateful to the work of Baroness Ford, which includes some radical ideas for raising further capital against the social housing asset base. I look forward to advancing that work with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Strategic Investment Board. I shall now address those issues in turn.
A starting point for the new housing agenda must be the construction of more homes. My final budget provides for the building of 1,500 homes in year 1, 1,750 in year 2 and 2,000 in year 3. Those figures represent a significant increase over previous years, and I hope to better them.
One of the key recommendations from the research is the introduction of a developer contribution. The Environment Minister and I intend to implement a policy to introduce a developer contribution to social and affordable housing. That contribution, which is a normal part of the planning process elsewhere on these islands, will require developers to provide social and affordable housing as a proportion of all new proposed housing developments. Under such an arrangement, it will also be possible to establish integrated develop­ments so that social, affordable and private housing can be built seamlessly in the same development.
Last year alone, 2,000 homes were provided across Southern Ireland through a form of developer con­tribution. In time, we could secure many hundreds, if not thousands, of additional affordable homes through a similar contribution. I do not understand why such a contribution was not introduced under direct rule. I believe that that was a missed opportunity.
This is a significant proposal, and the detail of it will go out for consultation as a proposed addendum to Planning Policy Statement 12. I expect the proposal to make a positive impact, and I am grateful to my colleague Arlene Foster for her support in introducing it as a priority.
The Housing Executive has produced an empty homes strategy, which identifies the number of public and private houses that are empty but which have the potential to be brought back into use. An action plan is being developed, through which 4,000 owners of empty dwellings will be contacted and encouraged — perhaps, with the incentive of existing improvement grants — to make the dwellings available to new occupants. I have also lent my support to the Finance Minister’s proposal to levy rates on empty houses. Together, we are using a carrot-and-stick approach, and that should result in the creation of more houses.
I am also engaged in the ministerial subgroup on rural planning. In the context of a revised PPS 14, I am negotiating a relaxation in the restrictions on social and affordable housing development in rural settlements. I am confident that we will soon be able to do more for those on the waiting lists who wish to live in rural communities.
Sky-high house prices mean that one of the greatest problems facing some people is getting on to the first rung of the housing ladder. That is why I want to enhance the successful co-ownership scheme. If the scheme is enhanced, more people will look to that form of home ownership as a realistic alternative to immediate outright purchase. Last year, record numbers of people were helped on to the housing ladder through the co-ownership scheme, and I want to build on that success. From April of this year, I will abolish the limits that restrict the purchase of homes through co-ownership, and I want to amend the scheme to allow people to enter it more easily.
I want to make it possible for people to avail themselves of co-ownership by buying 25% of the value of a property as opposed to the current minimum of 50%. Furthermore, I want them to find it easier to purchase additional shares in their homes, so I will reduce the minimum increment from 12·5% to 5%. I will ensure that new eligibility criteria are in place when the changes are introduced, so that people will not overextend themselves financially.
I am also conscious that there is a need to support people who are striving to stay on the housing ladder. Last year, repossession orders were served on almost 1,000 people. I want to establish a mortgage rescue scheme that will help those people, and I will have detailed proposals in place by the summer of this year.
I have also undertaken a review of the Housing Executive’s house sales scheme. The scheme has proved popular since it was introduced, and it has led to a greater mix of tenures in our housing estates — bringing about greater social and economic cohesion. However, in recent years, house sales have dropped as values have doubled. The appetite to buy remains high, but affordability is the obstacle. I want to create more pathways to home ownership. That is why I will extend the house sales scheme from 1 November this year to give all social-housing tenants the chance to own a share in their homes. I also hope to provide more social housing with the additional receipts delivered by that new initiative.
The future of housing lies in mixed tenure and in the provision of housing that will bring people together, not keep them apart. The Programme for Government was criticised for the absence of a commitment to a shared future. However, a shared future will be a central theme in all my endeavours in housing. In the education sector, many people want integration rather than segregation, and the same can be said in relation to housing. It is my intention to accommodate that desire.
I have visited the first shared future housing scheme at Carran Crescent in Enniskillen. It is well settled. Work on a second scheme, in Sion Mills, is under way, and good progress is being made on a number of other locations all over the North. It is also my intention to advance the shared future agenda in existing housing estates, as well as in the newbuild schemes.
Regrettably, shared future housing is sometimes presented as an alternative to delivering housing where it is most needed, and that is particularly pertinent in the numerous interface territories of North Belfast.
All that I can say is that my first preference, wherever possible, is for mixed-tenure shared future housing. However, above all, we must address instances of overwhelming need.
A full equality impact assessment will be undertaken for the Crumlin Road/Girdwood site, which offers considerable scope to ease housing pressures in that part of Belfast. I want shared future housing on that site. However, if that is not possible, I will allow building to proceed. I will not allow much-needed housing development to be vetoed by those who are motivated by territorial or sectarian considerations.
I also intend to incorporate creative, private-sector housing initiatives into shared future planning.
In an effort to get more for less, from April 2008, I will cut grants paid per dwelling to housing associations by 10%. My Department’s research, and the advice offered by Baroness Ford, indicates that associations could absorb that cut by making better use of their assets and by introducing more private finance, which would mean more houses for the same public investment.
Next month, I will publish a new procurement strategy for housing associations, which will be able to drive down costs by creating larger procurement groups, and I expect savings of up to 10% to be delivered through that strategy. The new strategy will also introduce improved quality and innovation in design.
Sustainability is another theme of my proposals. We must aim not only to build more homes, but better homes, and I am committed to a significant investment in sustainable low-carbon-footprint housing. All new social houses built after April 2008 will be required to meet standards that, in effect, will mean that they will be 25% more energy efficient than those built just two years ago.
By the end of March 2008, the former Grosvenor Barracks in Enniskillen will become a major £40 million regeneration project, which will include a new housing development that will set new standards in sustainable house construction — in effect, it will be Northern Ireland’s first ever eco-village — and I intend that it will be an exemplar for housing schemes in the North of Ireland.
In addition to developing an eco-village with social, affordable and market housing, I want the best possible use to be made of the most environmentally friendly materials. Therefore, the scheme will utilise solar energy and ground-source heat pumps and will recycle grey water. I want to learn economic lessons and replicate that project in other parts of the North. By reducing the overall cost of the scheme, we can demonstrate that it does not have to cost the earth to save the earth.
I will promote sustainability in the private sector by making £40 million available next year for private-sector grants.
In addition, I intend to increase significantly the resources available to carry out disabled-living adaptations.
Improving sustainability and energy efficiency in the private and social sectors remains a key objective in our ongoing battle against fuel poverty. In the past year alone, by directly improving energy efficiency in homes, my Department helped 17,000 families to be warmer, and the success of fuel-poverty interventions can be vouched for by the 200,000 people who are not in fuel poverty as a result of such intervention.
In order to derive the maximum possible benefits from certain interventions, I will increase my Depart­ment’s fuel-poverty spending from April and introduce practical reforms to the warm homes scheme.
I have already emphasised the necessity for action in areas with the greatest housing need, and there is a community in Belfast that is looking to me to end its housing misery. Nobody would deny that some housing in the Village area is simply not fit for purpose. When I visited that area, I saw how poor some of that accommodation was, and I gained a sense of how, under direct rule, people were strung along.
I assured them that I would act, and now, three weeks after getting my budget, I am delighted to announce that I have allocated a new amount of £7 million so that work can start in the Village immediately. That investment represents the beginning of a long-term project that will lead to the revitalisation of the area and, it is to be hoped, of the community itself. The initial vesting will be authorised in the next few days, and the declaration of the Village as an urban renewal area — a decision that will kick-start the full redevelop­ment process — will be formalised in March. That will trigger an investment of around £100 million for the area.
Under the heading of new approaches, I have introduced efficiencies into existing programmes, as well as a range of new initiatives that will allow me to deliver more houses for less money. I will also bring surplus land on to the market for sale this year, and I am pleased to have been given an assurance that housing will be a priority area for redistributing receipts from that course of action. My Department will engage intensively with the private sector and the development community in order to advance new structures and deals that can deliver the maximum housing for the least outlay of scarce public capital. I am confident that that innovative and flexible approach — if we pursue it with vigour — can produce tremendous results in the shape of additional housing. To that end, I will examine critically the structures and capacity for delivery in my Department. I have already asked the Strategic Investment Board for its support in programme delivery.
My Department has already made a start, and it will continue to deliver more social housing. I will propose radical changes and initiatives in order to deliver a substantial number of affordable homes. In addition, we recognise that it is essential to help more people on to the housing ladder and to ensure that they stay there. The Department’s priority will be to meet pressing housing need first, but that will not preclude the delivery of shared future housing for the many people who want it.
We will deliver more sustainable and energy efficient homes, including our first eco-village. We will end the long-term neglect of the Village area of south Belfast. Assets will be better leveraged, the resourcefulness of the private sector will be harnessed, and we will create the structures for delivery.
In short, we have created a radical and energetic agenda for housing, the like of which has not been seen for a generation. It has my total commitment: by working together on that agenda we can prove, once and for all, that devolution is infinitely better for our people. Coming from a party that has a proud record in housing reform, I am pleased to commend that agenda to the Assembly.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

John Dallat: Many Members wish to put questions to the Minister. If Members keep their questions brief, and if the Minister keeps her answers to the point, we should be able to give most Members who wish to an opportunity to ask a question.

David Hilditch: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I thank her for providing an advance copy. The Committee for Social Develop­ment has been holding its breath for some time for the Minister’s response to Sir John Semple’s recommend­ations, and, on the face of it, it would appear to have been well worth the wait. The Minister has provided details of a number of actions that I hope will go a long way towards addressing the affordable housing crisis.
The Minister’s statement has injected a new sense of enthusiasm into the debate on affordable housing. There has been some frustration since the publication of the Semple Report. Many thought that there was no clear path to get us out of the affordable housing crisis and that things were not moving fast enough.
In particular, the Committee for Social Development welcomes the short-, medium- and long-term targets that have been set for the implementation of Sir John Semple’s recommendations. It is important to have a clearly defined programme of actions and targets, and the Committee hopes that that will be coupled with robust monitoring and publicising of any progress that is made.
Committee members, and other Assembly Members, who deal daily with constituents who face some form of housing difficulties, believe that it is important that immediate improvements are made in the housing situation. However, it is equally important that the foundations are laid for a healthy, sustainable and affordable housing market for the future.
The Minister has said on many occasions that housing is a priority. However, I want her to tell the House what the priorities are within that general aim. Short-, medium- and long-term targets do not necessarily reflect priority. Will the Minister, therefore, clarify her priority actions for tackling the housing crisis?
Secondly, I would like the Minister to clarify what particular actions she sees as laying the foundations for improved access to affordable housing in the many years ahead.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr Hilditch for his very kind and hospitable words, and I welcome ongoing engagement with the Social Development Committee on this issue. When I first took office in May last year, I said that housing would be my number-one priority as there was an identified housing need throughout Northern Ireland.
The Member mentioned the various priorities and actions. I want to increase the number of houses and the supply of social and affordable housing through addressing the issues of developer contributions, land assets, empty homes, housing association finance and procurement. That will also involve relaxing the limits for co-ownership programmes and considering a mortgage-relief scheme, sustainability issues, the creation of an eco-village, shared future arrangements, mixed-tenure options and fuel poverty. Thus, the whole ambit is important. I need the support of the Executive, the Committee, the Assembly and the wider housing family to be able to deliver on the proposals.
I can assure the House that structures will be put in place to ensure delivery because we are now at the delivery stage, and the people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve the best quality housing. I want to have the ability to deliver such housing.

Fra McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement, and I welcome its contents. Given the importance that has been attached to the review, many people eagerly await the production of a strategy that will give clear signals to the wider public that the housing nightmare will be tackled seriously.
With that in mind, will the Minister tell us when we can expect the first houses to be built under the proposals for a developer’s contribution? Will that be next month, next year or some years down the line? Will she ensure that developers do not use the intervening period to apply for planning permission to pre-empt the introduction of article 40 agreements. Have housing associations been advised to buy off-the-shelf houses rather than opting for newbuild to enhance the numbers for this year’s programme, and does she see that approach as offering value for money?
The implementation plan, which is based on recommendations from the Semple Report, states that the targets for the Titanic Quarter should be set at 3,500 units of affordable housing, with 15% to 20% being social housing. Will the Minister explain her definition of an affordable house? Will she further tell the House if the same will apply to the Sirocco Works development in east Belfast?
Will the Minister also tell the House —

John Dallat: Will the Member get to the point?

Fra McCann: They are all questions, Mr Deputy Speaker. You gave leeway to the Minister when she was answering questions, and to the Deputy Chairperson.

John Dallat: Order. I must give leeway to the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of a Committee. I asked Members to be brief —

Fra McCann: What I am saying —

John Dallat: Sorry, excuse me. I have in front of me a long list of Members who wish to speak, and I really want to give all Members an opportunity to ask questions.

Fra McCann: Will the Minister also tell the House whether she has had a meeting with the construction industry to ask what part it will play in the creation of an affordable housing sector and in the supply of high-quality social housing? I am drawing my remarks to a conclusion.

Some Members: Question.

Fra McCann: Will the Minister also tell us whether land under the ownership of her Department in Belfast city centre and other cities and towns will be used for affordable housing schemes on a mixed-tenure basis, and will she guarantee that any developments have the infrastructure to allow communities —

John Dallat: Order. Mr McCann, please, you must really bring your remarks to a close.
Minister, you may answer all the questions posed by Mr McCann, or you may select some questions to answer.

Margaret Ritchie: I am glad that Mr McCann has a lot more to say today than simply telling me to stop whinging and accept my lot, as he said to me in the Chamber in October and November of last year.
[Laughter.]

Fra McCann: As a member of —

John Dallat: Mr McCann, are you making a point of order?

Fra McCann: Yes. As a member of the Social Development Committee, I am quite entitled to comment on the statement.

John Dallat: That is not a point of order.

Fra McCann: If I think that the Minister is —

Mark Durkan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Standing Orders provide that no points of order should be made during a ministerial statement or during questions to the Minister on that statement.

John Dallat: I thank Mr Durkan for that information. The Minister may continue.

Margaret Ritchie: Mr McCann asked a long series of questions, the answers to all of which were covered in my statement. When I became Minister for Social Development, I said that the provision of social and affordable housing was my main priority. That was because I realised that there was an identified need for social and affordable housing, with 38,000 people on the housing list, 50% of whom were in housing stress, and a large number of whom were homeless. Many such people could not afford to get on to the first rung of the property ladder.
At that stage, I was determined to undertake research and analysis, and to establish the evidence that would enable me to implement measures to kick-start a new housing agenda. That is the basis for today’s statement.
Minister Foster and I have been working since before January of this year on the issue of developer contributions. It is worth noting that the responsibility for PPS 12 was transferred from Minister Murphy to Minister Foster only in January of this year.
I will ensure that delivery is now part of my vocabulary and part of my action. Indeed, that should be part of everyone’s actions. I want to address housing need wherever it exists throughout Northern Ireland, irrespective of location.

Fra McCann: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Dallat: The Member must resume his seat.

Fra McCann: The Minister did not answer any of my questions.

John Dallat: Points of order cannot be taken during questions to the Minister.

Fra McCann: You took a point of order from your party leader.

John Dallat: I took a point of information. I am sorry that you have referred to a party leader. I am chairing this sitting in an impartial capacity. There is a long list of Members who wish to ask questions. Without apology, I ask Members to be brief when asking questions.

Fred Cobain: I notice that you said that before I rose to speak.
I thank the Minister for all her hard work on this issue and for her statement. I welcome some of the new and innovative measures that she outlined in her statement. However, I am cautious about getting too optimistic about the housing difficulties being solved. The deficit in social housing is so great that what was outlined in today’s statement should be considered as only a first step.
Developer contributions should be welcomed. Some 80,000 homes were built last year in the Irish Republic, 2,000 of which came from developer contributions, which represented a little over 2%. If the equivalent figure is applied to the targets that have been set for Northern Ireland, that would equate to developers contributing just over 100 homes, which is not a tremendous number.
The Minister specifically mentioned North Belfast, and the issue of a shared future. As an Assembly Member for that area, I am aware that a shared future can grow organically — I welcome and support that. However, any attempt to enforce integration through housing in North Belfast will damage community relations in that area in the long term.
In a recent newspaper interview, the Minister of Finance and Personnel said that the 5,250 new homes that were announced by the Minister were in addition to the 10,000 new homes that were announced in the Programme for Government. Will the Minister comment on that statement?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr Cobain for his kind words. The 5,250 new houses will be built during the three years of the comprehensive spending review. The 10,000 new homes that were referred to in the Programme for Government will be built over the next five years. That is my intention, and, if at all possible, I am determined to better that.
I have taken on board and listened to what Mr Cobain said about North Belfast and about the particular problems of that area.
I am anxious to ensure that there will be equality in all opportunities offered on the Girdwood site, such as social and affordable housing, recreation and jobs, because I simply want people to be able to live, work and socialise together. I know that Mr Cobain agrees with me on that issue.
Mr Cobain asked me about developer contributions. I have been to London and Dublin — and I know that Minister Foster has been to Poundbury — to see at first hand good examples of developer-contribution housing schemes being implemented. In London, I visited seamless housing schemes in Tower Hamlets, Shepherd’s Bush and Greenwich. In Dublin I visited a major regeneration scheme that is under way at Ballymun, Finglas and Dublin Docklands. In all of those cases, no one would be able to identify the houses that are in full ownership, those that are socially rented and those that come under the shared equity scheme. I commend all of them as places for Members to visit.
I take on board Mr Cobain’s comments on integration. Everything will work out, and I think that I have the support that I need from every Member to deliver the housing programme. That programme will ensure the provision of houses to enable people to access the most cherished thing in their lives — a roof over their heads.

John Dallat: Before calling Alban Maginness, I remind Members and the Minister to be concise and stick to the point.

Alban Maginness: I will be as succinct as possible. I welcome the commitment to meeting housing need in north Belfast, particularly at the Girdwood site, which should be a shared future site. The Minister’s proposals are innovative, creative and have the capacity to transform the housing market in Northern Ireland.
When will the Minister be in a position to provide details on her proposal to allow existing tenants in Housing Executive or housing association properties to purchase a share of their homes, thereby becoming co-owners of those homes?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank my colleague Mr Maginness for his kind words. I want that co-ownership scheme to be implemented by November 2008.

Anna Lo: I warmly congratulate the Minister on introducing the housing agenda. The Alliance Party is particularly pleased by her commitment to making a shared future the central theme of her endeavours to meet housing need.
I am delighted by the Minister’s commitment to promoting work in the Village. Previous Ministers repeatedly promised to bring work to the area, and I am pleased that there is now a timetable for work to begin.
Last week, I met representatives from the Housing Rights Service, who were extremely concerned about the level of repossession, to which the Minister’s statement referred. They also told me that firms are springing up and are offering to buy homes from people who face the difficulties associated with repossession. I want to hear more about the statutory mortgage-rescue scheme that is mentioned in the Minister’s statement.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Ms Lo for her encouraging comments. I am aware of the number of repossessions last year, all of which are due to the lack of affordable housing. My Executive colleagues and I want to tackle the issue of affordability, and I will introduce proposals later this year for a mortgage rescue scheme. I understand that a no-day-named motion is due to be debated in the Assembly, which reflects that a wide section of the House is concerned about repossession.

Robin Newton: I thank the Minister for her statement. I am pleased that she gained the Finance Minister’s support during the Budget discussions and secured an extra £205 million for her departmental budget.
I particularly welcome the Minister’s statement that she has looked for radical and unprecedented solutions. I ask her to consider a fast-track method for delivering housing, whereby houses that have already been built be put on the market for sale. Will she consider purchasing such houses for public-sector use?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr Newton for his questions. I thank the Finance Minister for listening to the reasoned representations that I made to him over a considerable period, which resulted in a substantial increase in my budgetary allocation.
I take Mr Newton’s comments on board. I must have further discussions with Minister Foster about planning issues to ensure that there are fast-tracked planning applications for many housing developments, which will add to the supply of houses. I will have Mr Newton’s suggestion investigated and I shall respond to him in writing.

Mickey Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. I welcome her commitment to the regeneration of the Village area of Belfast. As she is aware, my colleague Alex Maskey has been working with the local community in the Village to see that that area is regenerated.
Does the Minister intend to extend the role of the private-rented sector in the provision of social housing? Can she confirm that the resolution of the Assembly on the mandatory registration of private landlords, which called on her to draw up a policy on the issue, is not on her agenda for the foreseeable future? How will the introduction of the local housing allowance, which will — in many cases — reduce housing benefit paid to claimants, impact on the ability of tenants to pay the exorbitant rents in that sector?

Margaret Ritchie: The local housing allowance was discussed at last week’s meeting of the Social Development Committee, of which Mr Brady is a member. At that meeting, I said that I was happy to return to the Committee to discuss that issue, and that I understood the Committee’s concern about potential winners and losers. I said that I was receptive to any ideas that Committee members might have about resolving that issue, and my officials and I are exploring all the options. Members are aware that parity is also an issue, and, if matters change, there will be some implications for my budget.
I have asked my officials to explore the issue of mandatory registration for landlords, and I have not come to any formal view.
Members will recall that my predecessor, Minister Hanson, introduced The Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which dealt with the private-rented sector. That Order creates a direct association between houses of multiple occupation (HMO), and the environmental-health departments of city, district and borough councils. I have asked my officials to assess the implications of that Order and how well it is working after nearly a year in operation. I await that assessment before coming to a formal view. I commend my new agenda, which is aimed at kick-starting the housing sector and delivering houses for people in need.

Michelle McIlveen: Does the Minister acknowledge that the regeneration of the Crumlin Road jail and the Girdwood site can proceed only with cross-community support? Does she agree that the concern in unionist communities of North Belfast about housing on that site is not based on sectarianism, but is influenced by the sectarian ethnic cleansing carried out by republicans in the Torrens area, where vulnerable Protestant families were driven from their homes? Can she confirm that she cannot proceed without the support of other Ministers and the Executive?

Margaret Ritchie: I have given considerable thought to the master plan for the Girdwood and Crumlin Road sites. I launched the consultation process for that master plan on 16 October last year, and the consultation period closed around 22 January this year. I have received almost 800 responses to the consultation. After taking into consideration a wide range of views throughout North Belfast, and after listening to the Adjournment debate secured by my colleague Mr Maginness yesterday, to which some of the Member’s party colleagues contributed, I am convinced that there is a need for shared, equal housing on the Girdwood site. Everyone who contributed to yesterday’s debate told me that they wanted to see housing in the context of a shared future.
I will have to introduce a paper to the Executive on the future of the Girdwood and Crumlin Road sites. That is a cross-cutting issue. I have already said that I will do that, and I hope to introduce that paper in the not-too-distant future.

Michael McGimpsey: I thank the Minister for the personal interest that she has shown, particularly in the Village area of South Belfast — the largest concentration of unfit housing anywhere in Northern Ireland. I welcome her announcement of £7 million to begin the long-term project. Had she accepted the draft Budget, as many people urged, that announcement could never have been made. I also welcome the authorisation of the initial investment, the declaration of the urban renewal areas, and her remarks that trigger a £100 million process. That is music to the ears of the Greater Village Regeneration Trust, the people who live in that area and those of us who have battled on that issue for many years.
How does the Minister see the process moving forward? I represent an impatient community, and they want to see houses being built. What is the process for the delivery of that £100 million redevelopment?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr McGimpsey for his kind words. At his invitation, I visited the Village area with him and the Member of Parliament for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell, on 14 June 2007. I have had an opportunity to meet members of the Greater Village Regeneration Trust, along with a section of the local community and many other people, over the last few months. I was struck by the housing conditions that I witnessed in that area, and I wanted to do something to alleviate the problems that those people have suffered.
As a result of my decision today, I have instructed my officials to work on the Village area as a priority. I have also urged the Housing Executive to ensure that it deals with that issue not only at its board meeting tomorrow, but at its subsequent board meeting in March. That board meeting will deal with two separate papers on the Village area.
My Department and the Housing Executive are charged with the need to address housing conditions in that area, and we will work collectively. We also want to work with Mr McGimpsey and the other repre­sentatives for South Belfast to kick-start the building of new houses and a new housing and regeneration agenda for the Village area that will deliver a better sense of health, well-being and better housing, and will create a series of opportunities for current and future generations.

Thomas Burns: Will the Minister gift many sites to local communities as she rolls out her housing agenda?

Margaret Ritchie: Consultation with local communities will be paramount in any housing or regeneration development that I will undertake. Housing and regeneration are interlinked, because they deliver a better sense of health and well-being. I do not see how a proposed development can be successful without the support and buy-in of local communities such as those in the Village or North Belfast. In addition, any significant development will be subject to full equality proofing, and an equality impact assessment will be necessary.
Having said all that, I know that it is natural that many communities would wish to take control of some available sites for community purposes. However, I must accept that, in a time of inflated land prices, such sites are valuable assets, and, as a rule, I cannot pass them on to communities for community use.
When a suitable site becomes available, my first instinct will be to build social and affordable housing on it. Although most building will be done by housing associations through the Housing Executive’s social housing development programme, I will be seeking mixed-tenure developments and more involvement from the private sector; private-sector involvement is crucial. I seek partnership among the Housing Executive — as the strategic housing authority — the housing associations, my Department and the private sector to deliver a new housing future for the people of Northern Ireland and for future generations.

Carál Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. I am delighted that we are discussing social and affordable housing and North Belfast less than 24 hours after a debate in the House on housing need in that area. I am delighted that some of our colleagues in other parties have recognised the historical inequalities in housing in North Belfast.
Will the Minister assure the House that, given that an equality impact assessment was not conducted before Christmas, it will be carried out now on the regeneration of North Belfast and the housing needs of the people who live there, and that it will reflect the needs of those on the housing waiting list? Will she also assure the House that integrated housing schemes will be developed only where demand exists and that integrated housing will not be imposed on people as their only option for attaining a home? Go raibh maith agat.

Margaret Ritchie: I gave a detailed response yesterday to the issue of housing in North Belfast. I wish to address housing on the basis of need. There is significant housing need throughout Northern Ireland. I am well aware of the housing inequalities in North Belfast and of the need to continue to address the regeneration and housing requirements of that area.
I honestly believe that, given the bedding-down of the political institutions and current, continuing peace and stability, we are all required to contribute to that to ensure that people feel safe in their own environments. It is incumbent on us all to move towards a situation where people can live, work and socialise together, because that is the future for everyone. It is not a matter of imposition; it is a matter of simply ensuring, through time, that we can all live in partnership. If we can share power here, there is nothing to stop us encouraging people to live in partnership in all our communities.

Jonathan Craig: I warmly welcome some of the Minister’s comments. With regard to the contribution of private developers, is she aware that in some areas, including my constituency, much land banking has taken place in the past few years, and there are many planning applications in the system? The impact of the contribution of private developers could take more than five years to impact on social housing provision in such areas.
Will the Minister take that on board and consider more proactively purchasing land in areas where those circumstances have applied?
I welcome the fact that she will consider a mortgage rescue scheme. This is the only area in the UK where a not-for-profit scheme does not exist, and that has a significant impact on the housing market, to the detriment of the public purse.
Will the Minister also examine the warm homes scheme and perhaps market more proactively renewable energy sources? At present, the choice is between oil-fired or gas-fired central heating, but renewable sources, such as woodchip boilers, are available.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr Craig for his questions, and I know that he always takes an interest in those matters in the Social Development Committee. I take on board what he says about land banking. The Minister of Finance and Personnel’s proposals on empty homes and house banking will take account of that.
Both Minister Foster and I are aware of the impact of private-developer contributions. We both want to ensure that those proposals are advanced as quickly as possible in order to ensure an increase in the supply of social and affordable housing in Northern Ireland.
Mr Craig has tabled a motion on the no-day-named list about a mortgage-relief scheme. We all know of people who have had their houses repossessed. It boils down to affordability: we want to help people who are in trouble because our society is caring, and I would like to think that all Members of the Assembly are caring.
I want to explore all the available options to ensure that people do not find themselves suffering as a result of cold either this winter or in future winters. I need the support of all my Executive colleagues to explore those options. I will therefore consider any scheme that any Members propose to me.

Claire McGill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement. I commend her and her Executive colleagues for the work that has been done. As the Minister said in her statement:
“You gave me the money. I am giving you the houses.”
Therefore, more than one Minister is to be commended.
Mr McCann asked about developer contributions. The Minister replied that the answer to that is in the statement. However, I cannot see in the statement when the strategy will be implemented. The advisory panel that worked on the scheme said that a medium- to long-term delivery mechanism would be implemented. It also said that a consultation will be held on PPS 12 and that an implementation-skills group will be set up.
I ask the Minister whether she can provide the House with a time frame. Is it a medium- to long-term solution? In her response to Mr Craig, I believe that she mentioned five years. Go raibh maith agat.

Margaret Ritchie: Both Minister Foster and I want to introduce developer contributions. I said about 20 minutes ago that Minister Foster received PPS 12 from Minister Murphy only in January this year. Minister Foster would have been able to advance those plans had it not been for the considerable delay in the transfer of that particular planning policy statement. We will make proposals to introduce developer contributions later this year, and I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later.
Every Member wants the supply of social and affordable housing to be increased. My solution is simple: let us all get on the bandwagon now and address the affordability issue, alleviate the housing crisis and ensure that everyone has access to a roof over their head, which is the most fundamental requirement for daily living.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for her statement. Her interest and enthusiasm are clear, and I welcome that. The Minister mentioned that she has been in discussions about PPS 12 with Arlene Foster, who is an equally enthusiastic Minister. Is there a timescale for the completion of those discussions?
What bodies will be involved in the mortgage rescue scheme: the benefit offices, the Department or the co-ownership schemes?
The Minister said that she will make an extra £40 million available for private-sector grants to promote eco-friendly housing. I am concerned about slowness in the paying out of those grants. Some people have said that they are out of pocket for a long time before the grants are paid. Along with Enniskillen, a good eco-friendly scheme is coming to Newtownards in the Strangford constituency — I never fail to mention Strangford, if possible.

Margaret Ritchie: Mr Shannon never fails to mention his constituency of Strangford. Some weeks ago, I visited that constituency at his kind invitation. I examined various housing schemes, including Scrabo, which I previously designated as an area of risk. He mentioned improvement grants; those are important to people who wish to rehabilitate and improve their properties. I want to have further discussions with the Housing Executive to ensure that — all things being equal, and all the information being available — those grants can be expedited, because people need them to achieve a better standard of housing.
I heard comments from the Benches behind me to the effect that I did not answer an earlier question on developer contributions. Along with Minister Foster, I am doing everything that I can to ensure that developer contributions will be introduced as quickly as possible. That includes putting out a scheme for consultation, and I will also ensure that the resources and staff will be available in my Department to deliver the introduction of developer contributions. We want to work with developers; I have had various discussions with the chief executive of the Construction Employers Federation, who is in the Public Gallery today to listen to the debate. We all want to work together to deliver the best possible housing agenda for all citizens across Northern Ireland. It is particularly important to deliver that for people who are in housing need, people who have been on the waiting list for a long time, people who are homeless and, above all, people who have been trying to reach the first rung of the property ladder.

Mark Durkan: When Mr Shannon was asking the previous question, I was waiting to hear the Ulster Scots for “eco-village” and “sustainable living”. Perhaps we will be educated about that on another day.
I commend the Minister on her positive and comprehensive statement, which entirely vindicates her success in the Budget round. Her strategy is articulate and touches on issues of sustainable living, a shared future, fuel poverty and the complicated issues of developer contributions.
Is the Minister confident that the existing delivery structures that are available to her Department are adequate for the strategy? What other means will she consider to ensure that she, the House and the Social Development Committee are in a position to track and back delivery of the strategy? Will the strategy be able to overcome delivery black spots when they arise, whether through developer resistance, difficulties that housing associations may have with new procurement issues, or variations in market conditions?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr Durkan for his question, which has hit on the nub of the issue. The strategy is entirely concerned with delivery. I have had discussions with my senior housing officials, the Strategic Investment Board and the Housing Executive about the principal matter of delivery.
That is why, as I have said, I will be looking critically at the structures and capacity for delivery in my Department, including staff resources, and I have asked the Strategic Investment Board for its support in the programme’s delivery.
I have instructed my officials to provide a week-by-week report on the programme’s implementation to ensure that we hit all the targets. I assure all Members of this House that I am determined to leave no stone unturned to ensure that delivery is the top priority, that structures are in place to make sure that it happens and that there are houses to live in for those in urgent need.

David Simpson: I welcome the Minister’s statement; however, in the Portadown area of my constituency, there are 761 applicants on the waiting list, approximately 750 between Lurgan and Central areas, and more than 800 in the Banbridge area.
Will the Minister define how her Department will identify the areas in which affordable housing will be built?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Mr Simpson for his kind words and for his pertinent question. Everything concerning the location of future social and affordable housing will be done on the basis of need, a matter that all of us in this House want to address. The direct rule Administration took their eye off the ball as regards the much-needed provision of social and affordable housing. This House wants to deal with that issue and is equipped to do so. As the Minister, I very much want that.

Martina Anderson: Go raibh maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the comments on delivery. In that context, will the Minister explain whether her statement can address the massive social housing need in Derry, where, currently, 2,300 people are on the waiting list?
Does the Minister have any plans to intervene to address the benefit gap? Tenants who are unable to secure social housing are forced to go to private landlords, who charge rent above and beyond the amount those people receive in housing benefits, again forcing tenants into severe poverty.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Ms Anderson for her question. To put it simply, I want the capacity, ability and structures in place to build an increasing supply of social and affordable housing so that no one will be forced into the hands of private landlords or left with that as the only option. We want to build more and better houses for allocation on the basis of need.

Jimmy Spratt: I, too, very much welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly concerning the Village area. She has done much work since taking office, after many false promises from direct rule Ministers, and I congratulate her.
I welcome the announcement of an initial £7,000,000, with a continuing programme of £100,000,000. I have previously made the point in the House that there are over 400 vacant properties in the Village, and it is important that we do not get into a situation where there are logjams along the way. Will the Minister ensure that her officials will consult fully with the entire Village community — including homeowners — and ensure that the rolling-out of the programme will be continuous, with no hold-ups?

Margaret Ritchie: Mr Spratt is an MLA for South Belfast, so I am well aware of his concerns about the Village area. He has spoken to me on several occasions about the matter, and has tabled certain questions, to which I have supplied answers. I want, and have instructed, my officials to work closely with the Housing Executive and all stakeholders in the area to ensure the delivery of a good housing-regeneration programme that improves the lives of all who live there. When I visited the area, I saw the number of empty properties and the level of dereliction. I want to address the issue urgently, and that is why I have made my announcement today.

Willie Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and pay tribute to all her endeavours. I also pay tribute to the Executive and the Committee for Social Development, including Fra. [Laughter.] Social and affordable housing is a priority for all in the House. We all agree with the Minister and are behind her.
I also welcome the eco-village concept. A need to provide quality sustainable housing exists. I have raised the issue of the sustainability of her programme with the Minister a number of times. Can she outline what discussions she has had with the Minister for Regional Development, Conor Murphy, on infrastructure that will ensure social inclusion, including rural public transport and adequate public transport to services? Does she agree that we need to build quality housing and communities, not the huge estates of the past?

Margaret Ritchie: I welcome Mr Clarke’s Damascene conversion. He was one of the people who said that I was whingeing and could have accepted my lot. In various newspapers throughout South Down, he criticised me for being a little bit too indulgent. Notwithstanding that, we welcome latter-day conversions on the matter.
I am fully aware of the Member’s knowledge of, and interest in, eco-villages and zero-carbon housing. We will all be working towards a more sustainable future for housing. I will discuss with all my Executive colleagues the proper infrastructure that is required to deliver the best possible housing programme in Northern Ireland. I am sure that they will want to discuss their own infrastructure issues with me.

Declan O'Loan: I congratulate the Minister on her statement. Everyone will welcome the many practical measures to deal with the housing crisis.
I welcome her comments on a shared future. Can she provide any more detail on her plans to create shared-future mixed-community housing developments? Does she agree that achieving a shared future in housing is not something that can be done in isolation? It will require concerted action across all Departments. Does she further agree that that places a big responsibility on all in the Assembly? That includes when it comes to making requests to hold events in the Building.

Margaret Ritchie: I fully agree with Mr O’Loan about a shared future. It does not simply mean living in a shared future on a housing estate but a shared future in all our actions, works and representations. I very much like the Carran Crescent housing scheme in Enniskillen, which I visited in December. Shared-future schemes will be coming on stream in Loughbrickland and Sion Mills. There are proposals for such schemes in Ballygowan, Banbridge, Rasharkin, Derry and Magherafelt.
I am also interested in the need for more integration in existing housing estates. The Member may already know that the Housing Executive is pursuing about 30 schemes for integrated housing, with the help of funding from the International Fund for Ireland.
It is a building bridges programme, which all Members should subscribe to and work towards. With the bedding down of the political institutions, we want to achieve a better shared future for everyone on the island.

Mervyn Storey: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but I wish to ensure that there is some clarity and accuracy. The Minister was pleased to confirm that her Department was on track to start building 1,500 new homes this year. She said:
“I have been given the money, and I am building the houses.”
However, she got that money, with no thanks, or help, from her party colleagues, as they abandoned her and voted against the Budget. Therefore, on a point of accuracy, the Minister voted with us through —

Alasdair McDonnell: Is this torrent of abuse in order?

Mervyn Storey: I am making a point about accuracy.

John Dallat: Dr McDonnell, please resume your seat. Mr Storey, I am sure that you were in the Chamber when I said that questions should be brief and to the point so that we could get through the list of Members who wish to speak.

Mervyn Storey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would not want the day to pass without our saying something accurate. I particularly welcome the Minister’s attempt to bring clarity and detail to her announcement — the Minister of Education, who is absent, would learn a lesson from that exercise. Therefore, I commend the Minister on that point. Will she assure me that areas in my constituency of North Antrim, such as Ballymena, Ballymoney and Ballycastle, will benefit as a result?
Methods of identifying areas of need should not miss the pockets of deprivation that may be hidden. Such areas have been missed in the past, because they are among areas of affluence. The issue is serious, and the Minister is well aware of that. She visited Dunclug, and I welcome her continued efforts to ensure that that project gets off the ground. Will she also give me some indication —

John Dallat: Will the Member please come to the question?

Mervyn Storey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Minister give me some indication of how many off-the-shelf properties will be acquired in an attempt to achieve the targets that she is seeking for the incoming year?

Margaret Ritchie: In spite of the barbed comments from Mr Storey —

Alasdair McDonnell: They were nasty comments.

Margaret Ritchie: I would call them barbed comments.
I have always said that housing is my number-one priority, and I want to deliver the best quality housing for people in need across Northern Ireland. Last month, the board of the Housing Executive approved a multi-million pound environmental improvement scheme for Dunclug, which I hope will deliver a better environment and a better way of life for residents. In fact, I met Mr Storey, along with Mr O’Loan and Mr McKay, on a couple of occasions to discuss the pressing problems in Dunclug. I visited the area in September 2007 and saw at first hand the levels of dereliction that we all wish to address.
Robin Newton and Fra McCann talked about buying off-the-shelf houses, rather than building them, and I think that is what Mr Storey was referring to. I want housing associations to build new houses, rather than buy them off the shelf. It is 30% more expensive to buy homes rather than to build them. There may be some short-term gain in buying already built houses, but the long-term costs make building new houses cheaper than buying homes already built.

Jennifer McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister said that there will be a cut of 10% per dwelling paid to housing associations. How much additional money will that provide to our Department every year?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Ms McCann for her question, which referred to a 10% reduction in the grant to housing associations.
That reduction will provide me with a significant resource that I would not otherwise have had. I hope that that will be invested in the social housing develop­ment programme in order to build houses for those who are in need.

John Dallat: I call Mr William McCrea to speak, and I ask him to be brief, because we are coming towards the end of our time for this item of business.

William McCrea: I think that only six minutes remain for this item of business, so I will make my question short.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Some areas and constituencies in the Province are regarded as affluent. However, there are areas of deprivation in every constit­uency; for instance, there is a need for social housing in Ballyclare. In my constituency of South Antrim, we are trying to cope with constituents’ daily applications and enquiries about housing. However, the houses are not available for my constituents, regardless of whether they are being sought in Antrim or Newtownabbey. Although I welcome the Minister’s statement, will she do all that she can to generate a greater number of social houses for those areas?

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Dr McCrea for his question. He and I met about five or six weeks ago to discuss the pressing housing issues in Newtownabbey and Ballyclare. I will take those matters on board, and I will talk to the Housing Executive.
I know that this item of business is nearing conclusion, but I remind the House that it is my earnest desire to have the funding available to build the required houses in areas of need. I hear rumblings about people not understanding the housing issue or not knowing what they are talking about. There is one thing, however, about which we are all absolutely sure: there is an identified housing need across Northern Ireland, irrespective of geographical location or whether an area is urban or rural. The need for housing was neglected by the direct rule Administration, and my officials and I — as well as the Executive, the wider housing constituency and the Assembly — want to address that need. That means that we have to increase the supply of social and affordable housing.
I have received the funding to provide 1,500 houses this year, 1,750 next year and 2,000 in the third year. If I receive the funding to better that, I want to be able to build even more houses. I have no doubt that the reduction of the grants to the housing associations will provide me with the funds to do some of that work.

John Dallat: That concludes the Minister’s statement and questions. The House may be interested to know that 24 Members had an opportunity to put questions to the Minister, and I thank them for their co-operation.
The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.
The sitting was suspended at 12.48 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Assembly business

Appointment Of Junior Minister

Ken Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do we have a quorum?
Notice taken that 10 Members were not present.
House counted, and there being fewer than 10 Members present, the Speaker ordered the Division Bells to be rung.
Upon 10 Members being present —

Mr Speaker: We now have a quorum, and may commence business. This afternoon, I received notification of the resignation of the Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson MP from the position of Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. I have also been informed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister that, with immediate effect, they have appointed Mr Donaldson as a junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
Mr Donaldson has affirmed the terms of the Pledge of Office, as set out in schedule 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That affirmation was witnessed by me and Mrs Carol Devon, the Interim Clerk/Director General of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Mr Donaldson is now a junior Minister.

Executive Committee Business

Taxis Bill

Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments, detailing the order for consideration. Members will also have a copy of the Speaker’s provis­ional grouping of amendments selected list, which shows how the amendments have been grouped for debate.
There are five groups of amendments, and we shall debate the amendments in each group in turn. Therefore, during the Consideration Stage of the Bill, there will be five mini-debates.
The first mini-debate concerns 44 technical amend­ments, which are listed as group 1 on the Speaker’s provisional grouping of amendments selected list.
The second mini-debate will consider the two-tier system for dealing with appeals, which will allow for an initial appeal to the Department of the Environment (DOE) and, subsequently, to a court. Those 23 amendments are listed as group 2 on the Speaker’s provisional grouping of amendments selected list.
The third mini-debate will consider amendment Nos 5, 28 and 64, which deal with the General Consumer Council’s role and the publication of information.
The fourth mini-debate will consider amendment Nos 11 and 33, which deal with the management of queues at taxi stands by marshals.
The fifth mini-debate will deal with amendment No 71, which deals with allowing traffic attendants to enforce parking infringements by taxis.
All five mini-debates will be led by the Minister of the Environment. For the benefit of Members, she will explain the amendments as we progress. I remind Members that they may speak during all, or any, of the five grouped debates. Members must address the subject matter of the debate in question. For example, during the debate on group 2, Members must address the two-tier appeal system.
During the debates on the five groups of amendments, Members should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group of amendments is complete, there will be no further opportunity to debate those amend­ments. Subsequently, amendments in the group will be moved formally by the Minister as we go through the Bill, after which the Question on each will be put. The Questions on clauses to stand part of the Bill will be put at the appropriate points. If that is clear, we shall proceed.
We now come to the first group of amendments for debate: amendment No 1 to clause 1, with which it will be convenient to debate the other 43 technical amend­ments in this group. These amendments are intended to provide greater clarity and consistency and do not involve any change in policy.
Clause 1 (Requirement for operator’s licence)

Arlene Foster: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 14, leave out from “and” to end of line 15.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 4: In clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out from “and” to end of line 31. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 6: In clause 3, page 4, line 5, leave out from “and” to end of line 6. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 7: In clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out from “and” to end of line 9. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 8: In clause 4, page 4, line 20, leave out from “and” to end of line 21. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 9: In clause 5, page 5, line 6, leave out from “and” to end of line 7. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 10: In clause 6, page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph (c) and insert
“(c) include such other provision as the Department thinks fit.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 12: In clause 6, page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (3). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 13: In clause 10, page 6, line 27, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 14: In clause 10, page 6, line 38, leave out “subject to subsection (3),”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 15: In clause 10, page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (3). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 16: In clause 10, page 7, line 13, after “(2),” insert “subject to subsection (4A)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 17: In clause 10, page 7, line 22, at end insert
“(4A) Subsections (1), (2) and (4) shall not apply, for or until such time or for such a period as may be prescribed, in relation to a person who is applying to be authorised under an operator’s licence to operate a taxi service for or in respect of the carriage of passengers at separate fares and who—
(a) immediately before the coming into operation of this section, was the holder of a road service licence to provide a service on the same routes granted under the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967; or
(b) meets any other requirements that may be prescribed.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 23: In clause 12, page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (5). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 26: In clause 14, page 9, line 34, leave out from “and” to end of line 35. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 27: In clause 15, page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (6). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 29: In clause 16, page 10, line 28, leave out from “and” to end of line 29. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 30: In clause 17, page 11, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 31: In clause 18, page 11, line 35, leave out subsection (9). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 32: In clause 19, page 12, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 34: In clause 20, page 13, line 5, leave out from “and” to end of line 6. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 35: In clause 22, page 15, line 34, leave out subsections (8) and (9). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 38: In clause 24, page 17, line 26, leave out from “and” to end of line 28. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 40: In clause 27, page 19, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert
“(3) A licence suspended under this Act shall remain suspended until such time as the Department by notice directs that the licence is again in force.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 48: In clause 31, page 21, line 31, leave out from “and” to end of line 32. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 49: In clause 32, page 22, line 23, leave out subsection (7). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 51: In clause 36, page 24, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 55: In clause 37, page 24, line 26, after “premises” insert “and any equipment”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 56: In clause 37, page 24, line 36, after second “premises” insert “and any equipment”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 57: In clause 38, page 26, line 3, leave out from “and” to end of line 4. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 58: In clause 42, page 28, line 10, leave out “20(2)(c)” and insert “20”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 59: In clause 42, page 28, line 11, leave out subsection (4). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 60: In clause 43, page 28, line 36, leave out subsection (4). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 61: In clause 44, page 29, line 17, leave out from “and” to end of line 18. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 62: In clause 44, page 29, line 26, leave out from “and” to end of line 27. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 63: In clause 44, page 29, line 30, leave out from “and” to end of line 31. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 65: In clause 52, page 31, line 3, at end insert
“(2A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), for the purposes of section 14 of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1996 (c. 21) an operator’s licence which authorises the licensed operator to operate a taxi service for or in respect of the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall be deemed to be a road service licence granted or deemed to have been granted under Part 2 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 66: In clause 53, page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert
“(4) Subsection (5) applies to byelaws made or having effect as if made under Article 65 of the 1981 Order which—
(a) relate to taxis; and
(b) are in force immediately before the coming into operation of section 52(1).
(5) Notwithstanding anything in section 52(1)—
(a) provisions of those byelaws which could have been included in an order under Article 27A of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 shall have effect as if contained in such an order; and
(b) any other provisions of those byelaws shall have effect as if contained in regulations made under section 20.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 67: In clause 55, page 32, line 22, at end insert “‘notice’ means notice in writing;”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 68: Leave out clause 57 and insert
“Commencement
57. This Act (except sections 53 to 55, this section and section 58) shall come into operation on such day or days as the Department may by order appoint.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 69: In schedule 2, page 38, line 23, after “taxi” insert
“(within the meaning of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
No 70: In schedule 2, page 38, line 39, at end insert
“4A. In section 37A (carrying of assistance dogs in private hire vehicles)—
(a) for ‘private hire vehicle’, each place it occurs, substitute ‘taxi’;
(b) in subsection (9)—
(i) for the definition of “driver” substitute—
‘“driver” means a person who holds a taxi driver’s licence granted under—
(a) Article 79A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; or
(b) section 23 of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;’;
(ii) after the definition of “assistance dog” insert—
‘“booking” means a taxi booking within the meaning given by section 55(1) of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;’;
(iii) for the definition of “operator” substitute—
‘“operator” means a person who holds an operator’s licence granted under section 2 of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;’”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 72: In schedule 3, page 40, line 8, at end insert
“‘The Road Traffic (Amendment) Article 6
(Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (NI 3) In Schedule 3, Part 2’”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 73: In schedule 3, page 40, line 9, leave out “paragraph 16(2)” and insert “paragraphs 16(2) and 21A(2)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
As you have noted, Mr Speaker, the amendments in this group or, indeed, any of the amendments to be debated at this stage do not involve any change of policy. Rather, as I see it — and the Committee for the Environment agrees with me — these are designed to make what is already a good Bill a little better.
Before I move on to the amendments, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the team that has worked with me and the Committee for the Environment on the taxis legislation: Adele Watters, Bill Laverty and John McMullan, who are in the Officials’ Box. I want to put on record my thanks for the way in which they brought the Bill to me and discussed it with me. I know that the Chairperson of the Committee for the Environment will echo those comments. In particular, I am delighted that Bill Laverty is in the Chamber today, because Friday is his last day with us.
The first group of amendments is largely made up of technical amendments intended to improve the drafting of the Bill. They remove ambiguities in the current wording of the Bill and seek to maintain consistency with the main body of road traffic legislation. I understand that all of the first group of amendments have been explained in some detail to the Committee and that a consensus has been reached in tabling them. I thank the Committee, not least for its patience in handling such a volume of departmental amendments but generally for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill with all the interested parties and its suggestions for further amendments, which we will deal with later.
Amendment No 1 to clause 1 is the first in a run of 25 identical amendments that relate to all the references to offences and penalties in the body of the Bill. As currently drafted, the mode of trial and the level of penalty for each offence are referred to throughout the Bill. The drafting convention for road traffic legislation is not to state that in the body of the Bill but to state only that a person will be guilty of an offence and to then insert the mode of trial and penalties into the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
As drafted, the Bill provides for insertion into the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as well as referring to the mode of trial and penalties throughout the Bill. That is not wrong: however, to be consistent with other legislation and to avoid duplication, amendment No 1 removes references to the mode of trial and penalties in the body of the Bill.
Concluding my explanation of this run of amendments, I should point out that there are 24 identical amend­ments in the first group; namely, amendment Nos 4, 6 to 9, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 to 32, 34, 35, 38, 48, 49, 51, 57 and 59 to 63. Amendment Nos 10 and 12 affect clause 6 and are intended to clarify the Department’s power to make subordinate legislation to provide for taxi-sharing schemes. Those powers will allow the Department to introduce regulated taxi-sharing schemes, the purpose of which would be to help to disperse crowds in town and city centres at peak times when the demand for taxis often outstrips supply.
Amendment No 10 redrafts clause 6 to make it clear that the Department may make other provisions in respect of taxi-sharing schemes as it thinks fit. Amendment No 12 relates to clause 6(3), which permits the Department to vary any taxi-sharing scheme made by it under this section. The Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 enables Departments to amend subordinate legislation. Therefore, clause 6(3) is not needed, and it is proposed that it should be removed.
Amendment Nos 13 to 17 relate to clause 10, which covers taxi operators who wish to provide bus-type services. To do so at present they must obtain a road service licence — that is, a bus operator’s licence — by satisfying fairly rigorous criteria set out in the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
Under the Taxis Bill, operators will no longer need such a licence. They will, however, still have to satisfy exactly the same criteria from the 1967 Act, which are now set out in clause 10. My intention is to exempt anyone who already holds a road service licence from having to satisfy the same conditions again. Inadvert­ently, our exemption extended to only one criterion — the suitability of routes.
To conclude, amendments 13 to 17 restore the policy intention by providing exemption from all the conditions set out in clause 10 for existing holders of road service licences and enabling the Department to make further exemptions if needed.
Amendment 40 relates to clause 27. That clause sets out the time during which a licence will be suspended or curtailed. A licence may be curtailed by either removing one or more taxis from the licence or reducing the maximum number of taxis that may be operated. The period for which a licence may be curtailed is already covered in clause 26(4) and the proposed amendment simply removes reference to curtailment in clause 27, thus eliminating a contradiction in the legislation.
Amendments 55 and 56 relate to clause 37, which deals with powers of entry to taxi operating centres, or to premises suspected of being used as such. The clause provides that a constable or an authorised officer of the Department may inspect premises and any other item. However, the powers of seizure in the clause extend to seizing any equipment as well as any other item. There­fore, to be consistent, amendments 55 and 56 will enable officers to inspect premises, items and any equipment.
Amendment 58 relates to clause 42, which deals with taxi touts. Taxi touting happens when a person solicits someone to be carried for hire or reward in a taxi. Clause 42, as currently drafted, already includes an exemption to that offence if the behaviour is permitted by certain provisions of the Bill and by regulations made under one sub-paragraph of the Bill — clause 20(2)(c). Amendment 58 simply provides a general exemption to the touting offence if the behaviour is permitted by any regulations made under the Bill. In line with the policy intention behind clause 42, that will exempt activities dealt with by the regulations that may otherwise be misconstrued as touting. Such activities could, for example, include situations where taxi marshals are matching customers to taxis, or where taxi operators are advertising for business in a perfectly appropriate way.
I will now explain amendment 65, which relates to clause 52 of the Bill. I should point out that this is the only amendment that the Committee was not able to consider during Committee Stage, the reason being that the need for it emerged only when Department for Regional Development (DRD) officials appro­ached my Department after that stage had ended. How­ever, I understand that the Committee has since been informed of the amendment and is in agreement with it.
Amendment 65 is essentially about ensuring that taxi operators who provide bus-type services can continue to be eligible to receive fuel-duty rebate when the relevant parts of the Taxis Bill are commenced. At present, DRD can grant fuel-duty rebate to taxi operators who hold a road service licence that permits them to provide bus-type services. DRD’s concern was that that should be allowed to continue after the Taxis Bill becomes law. Although there will be no road service licences granted under the Bill, an equivalent in the form of an appropriate taxi operator’s licence will be issued. Amendment 65 allows such a licence to be treated as a road service licence for the purposes of fuel-duty rebate, thus maintaining the status quo for DRD.
I turn now to the last few remaining amendments in this group. Amendments 66 to 68 are minor technical amendments that relate to the savings and commencement provisions and that add at clause 55 a definition of “notice” as meaning “notice in writing”.
Lastly, amendments 69 to 73 affect schedules 2 and 3 by making minor consequential amendments to other legislation where reference is made to taxis and by repealing other provisions now made obsolete by the Bill.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the Minister for her explanation of the technical amendments. I will say a few words about the Committee Stage of the Bill. The Bill sets out a new legal framework for the regulation of taxis and taxi services. It covers the licensing of taxi operators, drivers and vehicles; fares and taximeters; hiring taxis at separate fares; and enforcement and penalties. The Bill also introduces enabling powers to make regulations in areas including the regulation of taxis, taxi operators’ licences and the hiring of taxis at separate fares.
The Committee looks forward to receiving the policy proposals for proposed regulations that may arise from the Bill in due course. I hope that our dealings with the Department of the Environment on the forthcoming regulations will be as productive as they have been on the Bill.
The Committee Stage of the Taxis Bill commenced on 26 June 2007. Thereafter, the Committee conducted a detailed scrutiny of the Bill, and Committee members proposed a number of amendments when we believed that it was appropriate to do so. The Committee and the departmental officials established a good working relationship, which paid dividends when it came to agreeing amendments. The outcome of that is the highest number of proposed amendments to a Bill that have ever been considered in the Assembly.
I am glad to report that all 73 amendments to the Bill have been agreed between the Department and the Committee. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for agreeing to include some of the amendments that were originally proposed by the Committee.
I also want to put on record the Committee’s thanks and appreciation to all the Committee staff and the departmental officials for their commitment and assistance to the Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill.
The Committee considered the Bill at 17 meetings between May and November 2007. We took oral evidence from 14 taxi organisations and individuals. All interested parties that provided written submissions to the Committee were invited to give evidence, and we welcomed their views.
The discussions that took place between Committee members and departmental officials during the Comm­ittee Stage of the Bill led to improved legislation. That experience should bode well for future dealings on Bills and regulations.
The Minister carefully outlined the nature and purpose of the 44 technical amendments, which are intended to improve the clarity and consistency of the Taxis Bill, and which do not involve any change in policy. The Committee was fully briefed on all the technical amendments by departmental officials. We sought and received clarification on one amendment about an exemption to the offence of taxi touting. Therefore, the Committee fully supports all the technical amendments.
Although the Committee accepts the technical amend­ments and has no issue with them, we did have a problem about enforcement measures, to which some of the amendments refer. That was a recurring concern to members during the Committee Stage. The Committee was informed that an enforcement officer’s role is to investigate levels of non-compliance and complaints, and that one of the main focuses of the enforcement team is to deal with the unlicensed sector of the industry.
The Committee took evidence from taxi drivers and organisations, who pointed out that there was a need for greater levels of enforcement and more resources. At that time there was a team of five enforcement officers to police an industry of 11,000 taxis. The Committee felt that that was totally inadequate. The Committee agreed to include in its report a recommendation for the Department to increase the numbers in the team of enforcement officers as soon as possible and provide them with the necessary resources to carry out their duties.
The Committee took oral evidence from enforcement officials at a meeting on 11 October 2007, and we welcomed the news that a bid had been made for more enforcement officers. The Committee believes that adequate enforcement is a key aspect of the Bill, and hopes that the necessary resources will lead to proper enforcement.
The Committee welcomes all of the amendments and commends them to the House.

Peter Weir: I suspect that the technical amendments to the Taxis Bill may not be a leading story in tonight’s news. Looking round the Chamber at the start of this debate, I wondered whether one large taxi could have provided transport for all the Members present.
Nevertheless, the Taxis Bill will impact upon the general public. It should enable people to hire a taxi in the knowledge that they will be safe.

Jim Shannon: I too welcome the Bill, and I recognise it as a positive step. However, Mr Weir mentioned safety, and that is one of the issues of concern that has been expressed to me. The Taxis Bill will enable all licensed taxis to pick up passengers from the street without bookings. Will that not increase substantially the likelihood of female passengers being picked up by bogus taxi drivers? I want the Minister to address that concern.

Peter Weir: Provisions in the Bill will regulate the taxi industry fairly well. The Minister will respond more fully to Mr Shannon’s concerns, but part of the rationale behind the element of the Bill to which he refers is that periods of congestion must be dealt with, particularly in Belfast city centre, where there is a shortage of taxis. The restrictions that have been placed previously on taxis gave rise to the danger of intervention by people who are unregulated, flout the law and perhaps have criminal intent. It is important that the amendments ensure proper regulation of the taxi industry in order that customers feel physically secure and are economically protected.
Taxi drivers abide by regulations, and they want a level playing field. It is important that their professionalism is noted and that they are protected; indeed, the amend­ments aim to do that.
I remember being in the Chamber when the Bill was introduced. I was one of several Committee members to say that I was looking forward to scrutinising the Taxis Bill — although I came to rue my words during several Committee meetings over successive weeks.
Nevertheless, there was a high level of interaction between the Committee and witnesses and the Comm­ittee and the Department, which was extremely responsive to the issues that the Committee raised. As the Chair­person of the Committee said, that demonstrates the advantages of conducting a thorough process — one that would not have happened under direct rule — to ensure that the policy on which everyone is agreed is brought into effect. Such interaction has resulted in a total of 73 amendments — 44 of which are grouped as technical amendments — and demonstrates the advantages of scrutiny.
As I understand that no time limit is placed on speeches relating to the legislative process, I will talk briefly about each of the 43 amendments. In fact, I will concentrate on three single amendments and two groups of amendments — I hear a sigh of relief going around the House at that news.
As the Chairperson said, and as applies to amendment 51, any regulation is only as good as the level of enforcement that is applied to it. There was concern in the Committee that sufficient resources were available to ensure proper enforcement. As the Chairperson said, some 11,000 taxis are in service in Northern Ireland, and it is important that provision is made to ensure that the law is enforced. Therefore, I join with other Committee members in supporting any bid that the Department might make for additional resources to ensure sufficient enforcement. It is important for the Assembly to support the amendment, but it is equally important that it is enforced.
Amendments 10 and 12 relate to the sharing of taxis. There are major advantages to regulating a taxi-sharing system to ensure that people get the best possible deal on fares. There must be fairness to ensure that fares are apportioned according to the distances that passengers travel and also to ensure that taxi drivers are not exploited or ripped off. That area of regulation requires further exploration and perfection. The concept and the underlying intention are fine, but some concerns were expressed when the Committee was given an example of what could happen. I am sorry that my colleague Mr Trevor Clarke is not here, because he became extremely excited when the Committee was discussing the details of the taxi-sharing arrangements.
It is clear that further work needs to be done to perfect the regulations.
As with many of the amendments, the detail will be realised through regulations. The concept of a fair and equitable system of fares for taxi sharing is welcome, as are the vast range of technical amendments before the House. I support the group 1 technical amendments.

Cathal Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I will not go through all the amendments.
I was trying to remember who David Ford said was keen during the Committee Stage of the Bill, but Peter Weir has cleared that up. He was correct — we certainly were keen.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill at its Consideration Stage. I support the Chairperson’s comments and pay tribute to the work of the Committee, the Committee staff and the Department. I also pay tribute to the stakeholders and thank those who made submissions to the Committee.
From the outset, the Committee decided that it would leave no stone unturned and allow all interested parties to make submissions. However, after 17 weeks, submissions from 14 groups and numerous emails, reflection is a wonderful thing. I commend all those who were involved.
The issue of enforcement has arisen many times, and the Committee has recommended more enforcement, which I hope the Department acts on. More enforce­ment will increase confidence in the industry and ensure that the legislation is adhered to by all taxi organisations and taxi drivers.
The last time that the Minister spoke about the Bill in the Chamber, she reminded me of the importance of the customer as well as the taxi industry. I support the pilot programme that addresses value for money, clears the streets, and eases some of the problems in cities late at night. I endorse the amendments.

Samuel Gardiner: It is good to see the legislation progressing through the House in an orderly fashion and the Assembly working on normal day-to-day business.
The Taxis Bill is about improvement and contains provisions that will make it possible for the Department to improve the standard of taxi services by: bringing in operator licensing for taxi businesses; setting a maximum-fare for all taxis; requiring all taxis to have a taximeter; making all new drivers pass a taxi-driving test; insisting that all taxi drivers have relevant training that includes customer relations; allowing some taxis to operate shared services and charge individual passengers separate, but cheaper, fares; requiring operators to provide more taxis designed to meet the requirements of older people; and allowing only accessible vehicles to use taxi ranks.
Therefore, the Taxis Bill is a thoroughly useful piece of legislation which imposes a regime of regulation and service improvement in the provision of an important aspect of public-transport policy.
The Bill has progressed through the Committee, and a series of issues have been raised. It is important that enforcement is kept under review — I have heard that the present enforcement regime will be strengthened, and I want assurance that sufficient resources in manpower and, behind that, in financing, will be available. Enforce­ment lies at the heart of the success of any Bill and it is something to which we must pay close attention.
A quick turnaround in issuing new taxi plates when taxi owners change vehicles must be ensured, because that process can lead to weeks of delay, which, in turn, can lead to lost income. There are 11,000 taxis operating in Northern Ireland, and they represent a major component in the delivery of the transport policy. The Committee Stage has produced a better Bill, which is fit for purpose and which will regulate the service for some time to come.
I commend the amendments to the House and I ask for Members’ support. Good legislation is clear legislation, and I welcome further clarity on this matter. I wish to be associated with the Committee Chairperson’s paying tribute to the departmental officials and officials of the Committee for the Environment for their professional co-operation and the work that they do for the good of the environment, with respect to the Taxis Bill in particular.

David Ford: We should record the fact that the relatively sparse attendance in the House this afternoon, and the unanimity that has been expressed so far, are signs of the good work that has been done on the Bill, both by the Minister and her officials and by the Committee. The fact that we are not engaging in the usual sectarian ding-dong — because Members have agreed on what is best for the people of Northern Ireland — is an example of devolution working well. Although it may be an unusual practice for me, I am happy to join the cosy consensus on this occasion. However, the Minister should not read too much into that.
I thank the Minister for the way in which she has engaged with the Committee. She has accepted the fact that she thought that the Bill as introduced was good, but is now better. I thought that the Bill was not quite that good, but is definitely good now. That is a sign of what can be achieved in the House when people engage. Her officials were willing to come to the Committee week after week to face the dreary sight of up to 11 Committee members, who were there to ask awkward questions and create difficulties. However, those officials came back smiling the following week, with answers. They made an effort to engage and reach agreement, and that is a positive sign of what can be achieved.
Mr Speaker, as other Members have said, not only the Committee staff, but other Assembly staff — some of whom are at the Table with you now — have contributed to ensure that the process worked well. It is right that that be recorded, because it means that MLAs have been able to do their jobs — and that, in turn, shows that devolution has benefits.
I shall refer briefly to some of the points that have been made already. There is little need to repeat everything, and not even Peter Weir managed to refer to all 44 amendments.
There have been problems with enforcement in the past. We have heard about the limited number of enforcement officers, and the huge difficulties that there have been. There is no doubt that some of the represent­ations that were made to the Committee — particularly by some of the public-hire drivers — were entirely legitimate in expressing concerns that enforcement to date has not been carried out properly. I look forward to the additional resources that the Minister has promised, and to the work being done properly.
Other issues that were raised by public-hire drivers, including delays in issuing taxi plates, are important. If we expect drivers to stick to the regulations, it will be important to ensure that the Department enables them to operate legally as speedily as possible.
Taxi-sharing schemes created a certain amount of fun, and that still hangs before us in the form of the secondary legislation that we yet have to face. That taxed our mental arithmetic at times.
Peter Weir has already referred to the unfortunate absence of Trevor Clarke this afternoon. I am not sure whether Mr Weir has him interned in the basement at party headquarters with a pocket calculator, or whether the Minister has locked him up in Clarence Court. However, there are issues that must be debated, because it is not easy to work out the type of scheme that we all agree is necessary. At least some of the officials will not have escaped by the time we consider those regulations.
One issue that concerned me when the Bill was introduced was the lack of an informal appeals process. Undoubtedly the Minister and Peter Weir will take offence when I say that I am not a great fan of involving lawyers in matters that do not require the attention of lawyers. However, the fact that we will be in a position whereby regulations can be drawn up under new clause 35(a) to set up an informal appeals process, which will make life easier for taxi drivers or taxi operators who need to go through an informal appeals process —

Peter Weir: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I regret interrupting the leader of the Alliance Party while he is in full flow, but I understood the informal appeals procedure to be among the items in the second group of amendments, and we are debating the first group. Is that in order?
I will post Mr Ford the bill for my advice, if he likes.

Mr Speaker: It is important that Members stick to the groupings.

David Ford: I apologise if I have strayed, Mr Speaker. However, the Committee Chairperson and the advice note that I received from Assembly staff suggested that the informal-appeals mechanism was part of the debate on the first group of amendments, and I was speaking on that basis.

Mr Speaker: I can confirm to the Member that that issue is in the second group of amendments.

David Ford: In that case, I apologise, Mr Speaker. I need new glasses, and given what I can see on the document that I am holding, I need them even more.
Attending this debate seems rather like attending a wake. A small group of people who have been friends during the past few months are meeting to celebrate the passing of something that we have all grown to know with some affection. We are here to be nice to one other and tell the odd joke. However, the offspring of the departed is approaching, and we will have to deal with it in secondary legislation. That will cause us all considerable amusement, I suspect.

Arlene Foster: I thank everyone who contributed to the debate on the first group of amendments. It is right to say that, but for devolution, the Bill would have gone through Westminster as an Order in Council. There would have been no opportunity to amend it, and there certainly would not have been 73 amendments tabled. This debate shows that devolution is working and that the Committees are providing the necessary scrutiny on such pieces of legislation.
I concur with the comments that Mr Gardiner, Mr Ford and others made that the Bill is better as a result of devolution. Despite the Committee’s needing 17 meetings to discuss the Bill, I am sure that Committee members will be glad that they held all those meetings when it comes to discussing the “child” of the Taxis Bill to which Mr Ford referred.
As I explained earlier, all the amendments have been agreed by the Committee. The majority of them are technical in nature, and none of them in any way undermines the Bill’s policy intention, which is to improve the way in which taxi services and providers are regulated.
Nevertheless, it is important that the amendments are made, in order to ensure, for example, that taxi-sharing schemes can operate without breaching rules that are designed to prevent taxi touting and that businesses that use taxis to provide bus-type services can continue to do so on the same basis as before.
I wish to deal with some of the general points that the Chairperson, the Deputy Chairperson and other Committee members raised. They have raised concern about the effectiveness and resourcing of the Driver and Vehicle Agency’s taxi enforcement team. They have also expressed doubts as to whether, in the light of those concerns, the legislation will be properly enforced.
During the debate on the Taxis Bill’s Second Stage, I stated my position on enforcement, and I thought that I had made it absolutely clear. Any system of regulation is only as good as its enforcement. My commitment to ensuring that my Department’s taxi enforcement team is adequately resourced for the task ahead is absolutely clear. Therefore, I am delighted to inform Members that, after the recent comprehensive spending review, the Driver and Vehicle Agency has secured substantial additional resources for taxi enforcement. As that funding comes on stream, the number of enforcement officers will increase progressively from five to 18 over the next three financial years.
To close on the vital issue of enforcement, I am confident that the Taxis Bill, supported by the new funding, will give my Department the power and resources that it needs to tackle illegal taxiing, and it will enable the taxi industry to deliver safer and better services for all.
I am also very aware — I am sure that the Chairperson and Committee members will remember — that much debate took place in Committee about taxi-sharing schemes, as Mr Weir has said.
The fine detail of where and when schemes might run was investigated. There was also a heated discussion as to who should benefit most from taxi sharing, the taxi driver or the passengers. I am looking around to see whether Trevor Clarke is here, but, unfortunately, he is not.
There were even questions such as: what would the fare be for a shared taxi from Belfast to Glengormley — perhaps that was Mr Boylan’s question — on a Friday night, if there were four in the taxi to start with, the first person was dropped off at the bottom of the Antrim Road, the second got out near the zoo, and only one person went all the way to the final destination?
Members will not be surprised to learn that the answer to that question is not found in the Bill. Otherwise, it would be considerably longer than it already is at 58 clauses and three schedules.
On a more serious note, that level of detail will be included in the child of the Taxis Bill: the subordinate legislation that my Department will draw up, discuss with the Committee and consult on before any taxi-sharing scheme is introduced. The Bill recognises that taxi sharing goes on, that it can help make maximum use of available taxis at busy times and places, but that it needs to be regulated so that passengers do not lose out.
Mr Ford raised the issue of how long it takes the DVA to send out taxi licence plates when a driver changes his vehicle. Evidence to the Committee highlighted that, in some cases, that can take up to six weeks, during which the driver is unable to work legally. The DVA accepts that, when a driver chooses or is forced to change his vehicle during the period of validity of a licence, it can take time to process and issue new plates and licences. That matter will be addressed in due course, as new vehicle-licensing regulations, made under the Bill, are brought forward. My Department is currently in the process of procuring a new IT system for taxi licensing, implementation of which will provide an opportunity for us to review our existing licensing processes and, where feasible, streamline and expedite that process.
Jim Shannon asked whether the Taxis Bill would increase the likelihood of female passengers being picked up by bogus taxi drivers. He intervened in Mr Weir’s speech to make that valid point. The answer is: definitely not. The vast majority of taxis in Northern Ireland are already allowed to pick up passengers without a booking. The change to enable all taxis to operate in that way will affect less than 20% of vehicles. In future, passengers will, as now, need to be vigilant and take care to protect their own personal safety. They can do that by looking out for the distinctive licence plates inside and outside the vehicle. If a vehicle does not bear those plates, passengers should not get in it.
Amendment No 1 agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 (Operator’s licences)

Mr Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. The lead amendment is amendment No 2 to clause 2. This group of amendments deals with appeals, and provides for a two-tier appeals system, allowing an initial appeal to the Department and, subsequently, to a court.

Arlene Foster: I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 2, line 30, leave out from “appeal” to end of line 31 and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department against”.
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 3: In page 2, line 38, at end insert
“(9) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(10) On an appeal under subsection (8), the Department may decide to¾
(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision; or
(b) approve, revoke or vary the condition,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit.
(11) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (10), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(12) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (10) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 18: In clause 11, page 7, line 24, after “2(8)” insert “or (12)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 19: In clause 11, page 7, line 27, leave out “in writing”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 20: In clause 11, page 7, line 42, leave out “in writing”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 21: In clause 11, page 8, line 1, after “2(8)” insert “or (12)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 22: In clause 11, page 8, line 4, leave out subsection (6). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 24: In clause 13, page 9, line 7, leave out from “appeal” to end of line 8 and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department against”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 25: In clause 13, page 9, line 13, at end insert
“(9) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(10) On an appeal under subsection (8), the Department may decide to¾
(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision; or
(b) approve, revoke or vary the condition.
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit.
(11) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (10), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(12) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (10) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 36: In clause 23, page 16, line 32, leave out from “appeal” to end of line 33 and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department against”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 37: In clause 23, page 16, line 36, at end insert
“(9A) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(9B) On an appeal under subsection (9), the Department may decide to¾
(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision; or
(b) approve, revoke or vary the condition,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit.
(9C) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (9B), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the ground of the decision.
(9D) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (9B) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 39: In clause 27, page 19, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert
“(b) (subject to section 35), it shall direct in the notice when the suspension, revocation or curtailment is to take effect.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 41: In clause 27, page 19, line 13, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 42: In clause 27, page 19, line 14, at end insert
“(4A) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(4B) On an appeal under subsection (4), the Department may decide to confirm, reverse or vary the decision as it thinks fit.
(4C) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (4B), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(4D) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (4B) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 43: In clause 28, page 19, line 41, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 44: In clause 28, page 19, line 42, at end insert
“(9) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(10) On an appeal under subsection (8), the Department may decide to confirm, reverse or vary the decision as it thinks fit.
(11) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (10), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(12) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (10) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 45: In clause 29, page 20, leave out lines 15 to 20 and insert
“(b) (subject to section 35), it shall direct in the notice when the decision is to take effect.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 46: In clause 29, page 20, line 21, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 47: In clause 29, page 20, line 22, at end insert
“(4A) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(4B) On an appeal under subsection (4), the Department may decide to confirm, reverse or vary the decision as it thinks fit.
(4C) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (4B), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(4D) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (4B) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 50: After clause 35 insert
“Regulations in respect of appeals
35A. The Department may by regulations make such further provision in respect of appeals under this Act as it considers necessary or expedient.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 52: In clause 36, page 24, line 14, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 53: In clause 36, page 24, line 14, at end insert
“(6A) On an appeal under this section , the Department may either cancel or affirm the notice, and if it affirms it, it may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the Department may in the circumstances think fit.
(6B) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (6A) give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(6C) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (6A) may within 21 days of the notice being served under subsection (6B), appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 54: In clause 36, page 24, line 18, leave out “or with such” and insert
“, in its form as modified by the Department under subsection (6A) or with such other”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
This group of amendments has been proposed by the Committee. I thank the Chairman and the Committee for their work. I am happy to move the amendments as I am in complete agreement with what has been proposed.
As drafted, the Bill provides for an appeal by taxi operators and drivers to the magistrates’ courts against various decisions on taxi licensing. During oral evidence sessions before the Committee, it was suggested by taxi industry representatives that an appeal should first lead to the Department, before having to go to court.
The combined effect of the 23 amendments in this group is to provide for a two-tier appeal system. This is how it will work: the first tier of the appeal against the decision, for example, to suspend a taxi driver’s licence, will be to the Department within 21 days of being notified of the Department’s decision. It is envisaged that a panel of three senior officers, not involved in making the earlier decision, will conduct the appeal, having invited the appellant and his or her legal advisers, to attend an oral hearing. Having considered the relevant evidence, facts and law, the panel will make a recommendation to the decision-making part of the Department to confirm, reverse or vary the decision.
The Department must give the appellant notice of the decision and the grounds on which it is to be based. If the driver is still aggrieved by the decision, he or she may make a further appeal to a Magistrate’s Court.
I see great merit in the two-stage approach. First, it provides a cost-effective and efficient first-tier appeal. Secondly, it will reduce the burden on the courts in that specialist area of law. Thirdly, it is totally compliant with human rights requirements in that an independent appeal to the courts is retained.
The 23 amendments address all instances in the Bill in which only an appeal to the courts is being provided for. They also provide for a new clause, clause 35A, which will enable the Department to make regulations in respect of appeals. That ends my explanation of the amendments in group two.

Patsy McGlone: I wish to raise an issue about the two-tier appeals system, on which some of the amend­ments touch. The Committee was concerned that the Bill was not providing for an informal appeals mechanism for departmental decisions on licensing and licences that authorise separate fares, and that appeals by taxi drivers or operators would go straight to a Magistrate’s Court.
Throughout the oral evidence sessions, several organisations and individuals suggested that an internal review by the Department or other independent body should take place before an appeal would be taken to court. As the Minister said, the Department saw merit in the suggestion, and the Committee asked for clarification of how that would work.
In a written response to the Committee, the Department stated that a similar system is operating in relation to the refusal of a road freight operator’s licence or bus licence. In those cases, the applicant’s first recourse is to an internal review panel set up by the Department. The appellant has an opportunity to present his case and produce evidence. Having considered the facts of the case and the law, the panel will make a recommend­ation to the decision-making part of the Department on whether the decision should be upheld or changed. If the person is still dissatisfied with the decision, he or she can pursue the case through the courts.
The Committee saw a lot of merit in a similar arrangement being set up for appeals by taxi drivers or operators and suggested an amendment that was similar to the wording in clause 11 to provide for an informal appeals mechanism throughout the Bill. The Department agreed to the amendment, and that has led to several minor and consequential amendments throughout the Bill. It has also led to the introduction of the new clause to which the Minister referred, clause 35A, which provides power for the Department to make regulations in respect of appeals. The Committee is pleased to note that the new two-tier appeal system is now provided for legislatively throughout the Bill, and the Committee supports those amendments.
The Committee commends all amendments for this debate to the House.

Peter Weir: Earlier, I mentioned the importance of the interaction between the Committee and the Department to produce the best possible legislation. An ideal example of that is the fact that the suggestion for a two-tier appeal mechanism, which came forward strongly during evidence sessions, was put in place by the Department. If two tiers are put in, further tears will not be shed at a later stage of the taxi appeal process. [Laughter.]
Lawyers occasionally get beyond bad jokes, and in case Mr Ford has to lie down in the same darkened room in which we have locked Trevor Clarke, I find myself in agreement with some of his pre-emptive remarks. Mr Ford said that, as much as possible, lawyers and courts should be used as a last resort. It is not appropriate to clog up the court system with a range of appeals, particularly those that could be resolved at an earlier stage. It is right that that the court system has been retained as the ultimate appeal mechanism to deal with dissatisfaction, because the decision could affect the livelihoods of individuals. However, it is appropriate that the appeals mechanism be put in place, so I welcome the proposals that have been included.
An issue was raised during the Committee Stage regarding, in particular, cross-border trade with the Republic of Ireland.
It is important that there is cross-frontier co-operation in the examination of criminal records, whether it is with the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain, or Europe, because pooling information will ensure that an appropriate check is carried out on people with particular criminal convictions before licences are granted. That will be of benefit to people who use taxis and who therefore look for assurance that they will be safe. Indeed. Jim Shannon raised particular concerns in relation to females being picked up at night by taxis.
Criminal record checks will benefit Northern Ireland taxi drivers, who want to ensure that the reputation of their industry remains untarnished. Where serious criminal convictions make it inappropriate for someone — whether inside or outside Northern Ireland — to hold a taxi licence, it is important that that information is made available as widely as possible to ensure that the person is prevented from getting a licence, thus preserving the integrity of the taxi industry.
Although this is perhaps not a matter for legislation, we must explore the levels of co-operation that can be achieved among the jurisdictions to ensure that the taxi industry is kept free from that sort of problem. It is an issue that cuts both ways, because I would like to think that pooling information would ensure that, for instance, whatever system applies in the Republic of Ireland, a degree of protection would be afforded in that taxi drivers from the Republic would not be disqualified from driving in Northern Ireland. That important issue must be addressed.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I preface my remarks with a declaration of interest as a member of my family works in the taxi industry. I am not a member of the Environment Committee; however, I have followed the Bill’s progress with great interest and anticipation. I heard it said today that there were 17 meetings, and I thanked God that I had heard that from a distance and not as a member of the Committee. That is not a reflection on any Committee members of course.
The Bill will go a long way towards ensuring the best promotion of the taxi industry with regard to regulation, service, and what the industry is seeking to achieve as a public transport provider. Sinn Féin has been, and remains, supportive of the Minister’s efforts: her work, and that of her officials, must be acknowledged. Workers in the industry have told me how pleased they were with the reception they got when they came to make their points to the Minister and the Committee. As Cathal Boylan has reminded us, times without number, about the 17 meetings, I am therefore putting the above point on record for Committee members and officials.
The Committee’s scrutiny has strengthened the Bill. Others have said that the resulting legislation will enhance the taxi industry and ensure that it carries out the job for which it is intended.
With regard to convictions; there have been several significant court rulings on political convictions and PSV licences, and I should have liked those to have been be reflected in the Bill as regards a person’s suitability for work in the industry. I understand that that legislation is not the responsibility of the Minister; however, I would like to flag up that issue. Go raibh maith agat.

Billy Armstrong: I, too, wish to record my appreciation of the staff of the Committee and the Department for their hard work during our scrutiny of the Bill.
I am concerned that criminal record checks for PSV licence applicants do not extend to the Republic of Ireland or to foreign nationalists. The good reputation of our taxi drivers should not be put in jeopardy by others: that is wrong on several counts. Just think of the danger the Minister’s sister, or my daughter, could be in by hiring a taxi that is being driven by someone whose criminal record has not been examined. I am sure that other Committee members have concerns for daughters and sisters in their families.
For one thing, there is a basic issue of public safety. Checks are there for a reason, which is, as far as possible, to ensure that someone who is permitted to drive members of the public to their preferred destinations is a fit and proper person.
In view of the growing number of people living and working in Northern Ireland who are from the Republic of Ireland or overseas, a huge loophole would be created if it were only Northern Irish applicants who were subject to checks. There is an obvious equality issue with that. It is not sensible that applicants from Northern Ireland should face a more stringent test than others. On grounds of public safety and equality, such a situation cannot be allowed to develop. For the scheme to have any credibility, the Department should extend the checks to non-Northern Ireland nationalists.

David Ford: I am grateful for the opportunity to experience déjà vu. I agree with Peter Weir agreeing with me on the point that he cut me off from making earlier. I am delighted to hear that the House’s representative from the Bar Council believes in keeping lawyers out of things wherever possible. However, I am not sure whether the solicitor who is sitting beside him, hissing, agrees with him; we shall see.
There are clear reasons why provisions that are similar to the appeals mechanism that already exists — informally — in the Department should be introduced as part of this Bill. As ever, the Bill will generate yet another offspring, the welfare of which we will have to consider in the future. We look forward to seeing those regulations proceed so that we have a fair, early, cheap appeals process in order that taxi drivers and operators do not feel that they have to appeal to the courts if it can possibly be avoided.

Tommy Gallagher: I too thank the Minister and her staff for the work that they have done in bringing the Bill to this Stage. Equally, I pay tribute to the Committee Clerk and staff of the Environment Committee and to my colleagues there. Representing as I do a border constituency, on 23 October 2007 I raised the issue of whether criminal-record checks extended to applicants from the Republic of Ireland or to foreign nationals. The Department said that:
“the current process of checking criminal records does not systematically involve checking records in the Republic of Ireland. When it comes to implement the Taxis Bill the Department will need to review the current driver licensing regulations.”
It is quite clear from what others have said that all members of the Environment Committee remain concerned about this issue. We recommend that the Department consider extending the checks to citizens of the Republic of Ireland and to foreign nationals.

Arlene Foster: I thought that Billy Armstrong was answering Raymond McCartney’s question when he mentioned “non-Northern Ireland nationalists”. As Mr McCartney will know, I cannot answer the point that he raised; it should be raised elsewhere.
I thank the Members who asked questions and raised issues in the debate on this second group of amendments. As I said, they are Committee amendments arising out of representations made by the taxi industry, and I am happy to support them.
The issue that Members have raised most notably is that of how the Department carries out criminal-record checks on licence applicants who have lived or worked outside Northern Ireland. That point was raised by Mr Weir, Mr Armstrong, Mr Gallagher and others. In particular, there are clear concerns about the fact that existing checks do not routinely extend to the Republic of Ireland or cover foreign nationals. That is a very valid point.
To begin with, all applicants for taxi licences must have a home address in Northern Ireland. Where the Department is aware that an applicant has previously had an address outside the UK, it requires the submission of a certificate of good conduct or good repute from the applicant’s country of origin. If there are concerns about the validity of such documents, the Department will refer the matter to the respective Embassy or consulate for advice.
The position on criminal-record checks is that my Department obtains details of criminal records from the PSNI’s criminal-record office in respect of applications for new and for renewal taxi driver licences. From April 2008, a new body called access NI will be responsible for providing that service. Access NI will be a criminal history disclosure service established by the Government under part V of the Police Act 1997. It provides access to criminal history information for individuals and, in certain circumstances, to organisations that are recruiting to sensitive positions. Access NI cannot search the databases of other countries. However, in some cases the PSNI may have access to the records of individuals who live in the Republic of Ireland, and details of those individuals will be included in the criminal record checks provided by access NI. I hope that that clarifies the issue of records.
Mr Ford said that he hoped that the two-tier process would be cheaper for taxi drivers. I also hope that. Unfortunately, in the past, two-tier appeal systems have led to people involving solicitors, paying them out of their own pocket and not being able to avail of legal aid because it is not available for such a process. I hope that it is a cheap, informal process that can move quickly. If there is a need to move to the core process, then it can become formal. That is my hope for the two-tier appeal system, but we will have to wait to see how it develops.
Amendment No 2 agreed to.
Amendment No 3 made: In page 2, line 38, at end insert
‘(9) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(10) On an appeal under subsection (8), the Department may decide to
(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision; or
(b) approve, revoke or vary the condition,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit.
(11) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (10), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(12) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (10) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.’— [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Duties of licensed operators, etc.)
Amendment No 4 made: In page 3, line 30, leave out from “and” to end of line 31. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]

Mr Speaker: We come to the third group of amendments for debate — amendment No 5, with which it will be convenient to debate amendment No 28 and amendment No 64. The amendments deal with the role of the General Consumer Council and the publication of information.

Arlene Foster: I beg to move amendment No 5: In page 4, line 3, at end insert
“(and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, regulations may include provision for the involvement of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland in relation to any such complaints).”
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 28: In clause 16, page 10, line 26, at end insert
“(2A) Before the Department makes any regulations under this section, it shall take into consideration any recommendations made by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
No 64: After clause 48 insert
“Publication of information
48A. —(1) The Department may publish, in such form and manner as it thinks appropriate, information in connection with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Before the Department publishes any such information under subsection (1), it shall take into consideration any recommendation made by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
This group of amendments was also suggested by the Committee, having taken advice and evidence from the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. I fully support them, as they give the legislation a clear consumer focus. Amendment No 5 relates to clause 3(9), which deals with complaints made to licensed operators. The amendment will give the Department power to make regulations to involve the Consumer Council in dealing with complaints. The council has considerable experience in dealing with consumer complaints in the transport sector, and it is useful to have the regulatory power to draw on that. The exact detail of its role will be worked out in regulations following consultation with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, the Consumer Council, the taxi industry and, of course, the Committee for the Environment.
Amendment No 28 relates to clause 16, which deals with the regulation of fares. It provides that when the Department is setting fares it must take into consideration any recommendations made by the Consumer Council. The amendment does not bind the Department to accept those recommendations, but they must be sought and given due consideration with all other representations. At present, the Consumer Council is normally consulted about any proposed increase in taxi fares in any event, but I agree with that being made explicit in the Bill.
Amendment No 64 is the final amendment in the group. It inserts new clause 48A to deal with the publication of information. It enables the Department to publish information on the provisions of the Bill, and, in so doing, it must take into consideration any recommendations made by the Consumer Council.
The Bill creates a revised legal framework for the regulation of taxis in Northern Ireland. The Department will need to inform both the taxi industry and consumers of their rights and responsibilities.
Amendment 64 will enable the Department to avail itself of the considerable experience and expertise of the Consumer Council in such matters, and I am happy to endorse that.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee heard evidence from representatives of the Consumer Council on 20 September 2007, who argued that that body should have embedded in the legislation a role on passenger complaints, fares, and passenger information. The Committee agreed with the Consumer Council’s views, and it asked the Department to provide a greater role for that body in the Bill.
The Committee’s proposed amendment led to the Department’s meeting with the Consumer Council, and it was agreed that its role would be embedded in the Bill through the amending of different clauses. The Committee welcomes the amendments on the role of the Consumer Council, and it is particularly gratifying to see the consumer voice embedded in the Bill.
Disability issues are dealt with by amendments 5, 28 and 16. The Committee took evidence from the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC) on 27 September and from Disability Action on 16 October 2007. The Committee was concerned to hear numerous examples of the experiences that people with disabilities have had when using taxis. It was emphasised that taxis are a key means of transport, especially for disabled people, and are often available when other transport is not.
The Committee was concerned to hear of the range of problems that have been experienced. Barbara Fleming of IMTAC and representatives from Disability Action gave evidence on such experiences. Ms Fleming’s evidence touched most members who listened to it, and indeed, if Committee members were asked to recall any aspect of the evidence that was given throughout the consideration of the Taxis Bill, the personal experiences that Ms Fleming articulated certainly had a personal and profound effect on many of us.
The issues that were raised in those evidence sessions included: lack of access to wheelchair-accessible taxis and restrictions on the availability of those taxis at particular times of the day; concerns about vehicle standards and safety for the transport of persons with a disability or disabilities; refusal to transport persons with a disability; increased charges for journeys for the carriage of luggage or guide dogs, for example, or for the extra time taken for the customer to get into the taxi; uncomfortable, cramped journeys; and difficulties with the storage of mobility enhancements.
Other specific issues that were highlighted included: lack of knowledge and good practice in transporting persons in wheelchairs; lack of knowledge on the use of ramps; wheelchair users being required to travel facing sideways or sometimes the wrong way; and lack of driver training and knowledge of the effects of impairment.
Despite the fact that there is widespread and extensive good practice among the majority of taxi drivers, the Committee was obviously concerned to hear of those experiences. The Committee’s report therefore recommends that the Department engages urgently with IMTAC, Disability Action, and representatives of the taxi industry, in order to address those issues.
In conclusion, the Committee agrees with all the amendments as presented, and commends them to the House.

Peter Weir: I am happy to try and keep my remarks quite brief, possibly because I am starting to run out of jokes. Indeed, as some Members may say, those jokes are getting weaker, having started from a base that was not particularly high.
I welcome the three amendments. As public represen­tatives, we are all aware of the good work that the Consumer Council does to protect consumer interests. The amendments are a product of the co-operation between the Committee and the Department on consumer-related interests.
The amendments deal with three issues: first, passenger complaints are largely covered in amendment 5, which includes provision for the involvement of the Consumer Council on such complaints; secondly, fares are dealt with in amendment 28, which includes a requirement that, before the Department makes any regulation in relation to fares, it will take any Consumer Council recommendation on the matter into account; and thirdly, the suggestion was made that consideration be given to the Consumer Council’s recommendations on passenger information.
To be fair to the Department, that is probably, to a large extent, what was intended from the start. It clarifies the situation to ensure that there is protection.
The need for consumer protection was brought home to the Committee when it received evidence from IMTAC on disability issues, but I do not intend to go into any detail on that, because the Chairman mentioned it and my colleague Ian McCrea will also deal with it. Those of us who heard that evidence found some of the examples disturbing. We must ensure that everyone — from the most vulnerable to those who are able to cater for themselves — is looked after. It is wrong for anyone in society to be exploited. The safeguards and provisions recommended by the Consumer Council will provide that protection, and I am happy to support this group of amendments.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. My earlier declaration of interest stands. As we strive to regulate the taxi industry, it is important that the protection of taxi users be at the heart of our deliberations. I welcome the fact that the Consumer Council’s position has been firmly placed in the legislation, because it means that any complaints or issues around the use of taxis will be acknowledged and protected by the Consumer Council and the legislation. The inclusion of the Consumer Council in the legislation will enhance the status of the taxi industry, because, for too long, people have seen the industry as being unregulated and haphazard. The industry will be enhanced by the fact that the issues raised by consumers and users will be heard, so Sinn Féin supports the amendments.

Billy Armstrong: I also was alarmed and disturbed by the stories that the Committee heard about the shoddy way in which some disabled taxi users are treated. For obvious reasons, disabled people are more likely than able-bodied people to rely on taxis. I know that many taxi drivers are a credit to their profession, but there are some bad apples in the industry.
Among the problems raised at the Committee were the increased charges imposed for journeys, the carriage of luggage and the carriage of guide dogs. Members know that guide dogs are important to many people, especially the disabled. Some customers have even been charged for the extra time that it takes them to get into a taxi. Those problems must be addressed. Difficulties with the storage of mobility enhancements and a lack of knowledge of good practice in transporting them were also mentioned. Proper training, good basic manners and consideration for others are required, but most taxi drivers co-operate and are willing to assist their disabled passengers.

David Ford: Mr Weir said that he was running out of jokes, so may I inform the Minister that paragraph 1216 of the Minutes of Evidence gives an example of one person going to Glengormley and two to Ballyclare. However, by paragraph 1756, one of the Ballyclare people had got fed up waiting, and there were only two people travelling together.
This set of amendments is among the most serious in the Bill. We have all said that the evidence provided to the Committee by representatives of people with disabilities showed that a small number of taxi drivers treat some of our fellow citizens outrageously. The poor treatment offered to some people is not only related to fares, as has been highlighted. It can also relate to the availability of a suitable vehicle and the willingness of a taxi driver to pick up somebody who has a disability.
Those who are physically or sensually disabled — particularly the blind, who need to be accompanied by a guide dog — have no less rights than anybody else to expect that there will be a taxi available to take them where they want, when they want and at a reasonable fare. Whether that fare is the same as what other people pay, or includes some nominal additional sum for extra waiting time, is open to question. However, it is unacceptable to suggest that people can be charged double or triple fares because they are disabled.
In making regulations, in consultation with the Consumer Council, these amendments allow the Department to ensure that those issues are properly taken on board. We look forward to seeing how those matters will be dealt with in secondary legislation.
It is clear that, for those who have a disability, the face of the Bill is now much improved, and we should endorse these amendments enthusiastically.

Ian McCrea: I thank the Minister and her officials for working with the Committee, in trying to push forward with this important legislation. I also thank the staff of the Environment Committee for the important work that they have done.
As the Chairperson of the Environment Committee said, one of the evidence sessions that stood out was from Disability Action and Barbara Fleming of the Inclusive Mobility Transport Advisory Committee. That evidence provided the Committee with real-life examples of why this important legislation is needed. Some of the evidence informed us that blind people are being ripped off, as they cannot see the fare displayed. Not all taxi drivers behave in that manner, but there are some bad apples, as another Member mentioned.
That aspect of the Bill is important, and I ask the Minister to outline how the Department of the Environment will deal with complaints from disabled people who experience difficulties getting taxis or are overcharged. In Great Britain, the Disability Discrim­ination (Transport Vehicles) Regulations 2005 made it illegal for taxis and other transport operators to discriminate against disabled people. Will similar regulations be introduced in Northern Ireland?

Arlene Foster: I am grateful to Members for their contributions to the debate on these three amendments, relating to the involvement of the Consumer Council in taxi-related issues, including complaints, fares and information.
I share Members’ deep concerns about the difficulty and discrimination faced by disabled people wanting to use taxis. Oral evidence presented to the Committee highlighted a catalogue of bad practice by some — and it is just a few —drivers and operators, including refusal of service; extortionate fares; extra charges to carry wheelchairs; and so on.
In an age when Government are seeking to create more opportunities for disabled people to access jobs and services — as is their right and entitlement — I fully understand why disabled people are increasingly frustrated, not just that those sorts of practices go on, but that no one seems to do anything to stop them.
I will answer the point made by Mr Armstrong — and I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber — and other Members about guide dogs travelling in taxis. I want to make it very clear that it is illegal for taxi drivers to refuse to carry passengers with guide, hearing or other assistance dogs. That is the law at present, and I hope that the new Taxis Bill will reiterate that position.
Mr Ian McCrea asked about complaints from disabled people who experience difficulties. If there are complaints, and if the driver involved can be identified, he or she will be interviewed by taxi-licensing staff, and, where appropriate, may be warned as to future conduct. In serious cases, the Department will suspend the licence of the taxi driver in question. However, my Department receives very few complaints from disabled people about levels of service or overcharging. That is not to deny that those problems exist, but, in instances where a problem occurs, the people affected should report it to the Department.
Mr McCrea also made reference to new legislation that has recently come into effect in Great Britain, making it illegal for certain transport operators, including taxi drivers and depots, to discriminate against disabled people. I understand that there are proposals— led by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) — to introduce similar regulations in Northern Ireland before the end of the year. I am very keen for my officials to collaborate with OFMDFM and the Department for Regional Development in that work, and to continue their ongoing engagement with IMTAC and Disability Action, to make taxi services more accessible to all people with disabilities, and to eliminate discrimination wherever it occurs.
Amendment No 5 agreed to.
Amendment No 6 made: In page 4, line 5, leave out from “and” to end of line 6. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 7 made: In page 4, line 8, leave out from “and” to end of line 9. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4 (Hirings accepted on behalf of another operator)
Amendment No 8 made: In page 4, line 20, leave out from “and” to end of line 21. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 (Hiring of taxis at separate fares – General)
Amendment No 9 made: In page 5, line 6, leave out from “and” to end of line 7. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 (Compliance with a Departmental taxi-sharing scheme)
Amendment No 10 made: In page 5, line 20, leave out paragraph (c) and insert
“(c) include such other provision as the Department thinks fit.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]

Mr Speaker: We now come to the fourth group of amendments, which are amendment Nos 11 and 33. Those amendments deal with the management of queues at taxi stands by marshals.

Arlene Foster: I beg to move amendment No 11: In page 5, line 33, at end insert
“(ea) providing for persons to manage, and regulating the management of, the use of such authorised places;”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:
No 33: In clause 20, page 12, line 19, at end insert
“(ca) providing for persons to manage, and regulating the management of, the use of places referred to in paragraph (a);”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
The Committee suggested those amendments to clauses 6 and 20. Although they are fairly brief, I understand that they caused considerable debate in Committee. I will not rehearse Committee members’ arguments again; however, they concentrated on the proper role of taxi marshals. The primary role of taxi marshals will be to match customers to taxis at taxi ranks, particularly at ranks at which taxi-sharing schemes operate. The Committee considered that to be more of a management than an enforcement role, yet the latter was intimated in the Bill. I tend to agree with the Committee’s opinion, and the amendments clarify that point.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Committee members were concerned about taxi marshals’ role and possible powers, and felt that more thought was required in order to envisage how such a role would work in practice. The Minister was correct when she said that we spent a great deal of time considering the matter.
The Committee considered there to be an overlap in the Bill between taxi marshals’ potential enforcement powers and enforcement officers’ role and powers, and it is welcome news that, over several years, the Minister will enhance enforcement officers’ capacity.
The role of marshals in certain circumstances was unclear. The Department told the Committee that taxi marshals will not be required to have specialist know­ledge and will not be given particular enforcement powers, and Committee members were happy to hear that their role will be limited, as the Minister said, to matching customers to vehicles at ranks. That will mean that taxi marshals’ role will be restricted usually, but perhaps not exclusively, to assisting customers and drivers in the taxi-sharing scheme. The Committee is also happy to hear that their enforcement role is to be limited to maintaining good order at busy taxi ranks, although, if required, the option of police, or authorised officer, backup is always there.
The Committee welcomes the amendments that relate to taxi marshals and commends them to the House.

Alastair Ross: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate; I had a meeting with another Minister. I am led to believe that the Committee Stage of the Taxis Bill was a fairly lengthy exercise, so perhaps I was fortunate to join the Committee for the Environment after it had been completed.
Taxi regulations are important, because so many people use taxis, particularly after a night out. Much of the legislation aims to improve overall safety, which is to be welcomed. As the Chairperson mentioned during his contribution, there was some concern about the issue of taxi marshals. As the Minister said, recognition of the precise role of taxi marshals has alleviated some of those concerns. I am aware that similar schemes operate in England. Part of the role of taxi marshals is to maintain and manage order at taxi ranks and queues. If taxi marshalling is operated correctly, it not only improves safety but assists customers ― generally and with taxi sharing ― and discourages antisocial behaviour. It is important to note that a taxi marshal is not an enforcement officer but a facilitator for those who wish to use taxis at busy ranks, and so on. I welcome this part of the Bill and support the amendments.

Cathal Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I must belatedly thank the Minister, because earlier I thanked everyone except her. It is sad that Mr Weir has left with his jokes, but his stand-in, Mr Ford, will perform for a few minutes, anyway. It is a pity that Trevor Clarke is not in the Chamber; he stimulated some healthy debate in the Committee and, in his absence, continues to stimulate debate.
Any discussion on taxi marshalling should mention taxi-sharing schemes. There were initial concerns about the specific role of taxi marshals and their powers. In light of the incidents that occur every weekend in city centres, taxi marshals will bring advantages such as clearing the streets and ensuring an efficient flow of people. I welcome that and support the amendments. Go raibh maith agat.

Arlene Foster: I am glad that all Members welcome the idea of taxi marshals. An orderly queuing system will be infinitely better than the free-for-all that sometimes ensues late in the evening. Anyone who has queued for a taxi at Paddington station in London will be familiar with the role of taxi marshals, which is to monitor safety, keep good order and ensure that people get taxis in the correct order.

Mr Speaker: We will vote now. Therefore, it is vital that there is a quorum in the House.
Amendment No 11 agreed to.
Amendment No 12 made: In page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (3).― [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 (Functions in relation to operator’s licence authorising separate fares)
Amendment No 13 made: In page 6, line 27, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”.― [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 14 made: In page 6, line 38, leave out “subject to subsection (3),”.― [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 15 made: In page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (3). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 16 made: In page 7, line 13, after “(2),” insert “subject to subsection (4A)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 17 made: In page 7, line 22, at end insert
“(4A) Subsections (1), (2) and (4) shall not apply, for or until such time or for such a period as may be prescribed, in relation to a person who is applying to be authorised under an operator’s licence to operate a taxi service for or in respect of the carriage of passengers at separate fares and who—
(a) immediately before the coming into operation of this section, was the holder of a road service licence to provide a service on the same routes granted under the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967; or
(b) meets any other requirements that may be prescribed.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 (Appeals in relation to operator’s licence authorising separate fares)
Amendment No 18 made: In page 7, line 24, after “2(8)” insert “or (12)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 19 made: In page 7, line 27, leave out “in writing”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 20 made: In page 7, line 42, leave out “in writing”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 21 made: In page 8, line 1, after “2(8)” insert “or (12)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 22 made: In page 8, line 4, leave out subsection (6). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 (Requirement for taxi licence)
Amendment No 23 made: In page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (5). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 (Taxi licences)
Amendment No 24 made: In page 9, line 7, leave out from “appeal” to end of line 8 and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department against”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Amendment No 25 made: In page 9, line 13, at end insert
“(9) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(10) On an appeal under subsection (8), the Department may decide to—
(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision; or
(b) approve, revoke or vary the condition,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit.
(11) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (10), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(12) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (10) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 (Duties of owners of licensed taxis)
Amendment No 26 made: In page 9, line 34, leave out from “and” to end of line 35. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15 (Identification of licensed vehicles)
Amendment No 27 made: In page 10, line 10, leave out subsection (6). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 (Regulation of fares, etc.)
Amendment No 28 made: In page 10, line 26, at end insert
“(2A) Before the Department makes any regulations under this section, it shall take into consideration any recommendations made by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 29 made: In page 10, line 28, leave out from “and” to end of line 29. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 16, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 (Display and publication, etc. of fares)
Amendment No 30 made: In page 11, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 (Regulation of taximeters etc.)
Amendment No 31 made: In page 11, line 35, leave out subsection (9). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 (Taxis not to carry more than the prescribed number of persons)
Amendment No 32 made: In page 12, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 (Regulations concerning taxis or use of taxis)
Amendment No 33 made: In page 12, line 19, at end insert
“(ca) providing for persons to manage, and regulating the management of, the use of places referred to in paragraph (a);”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 34 made: In page 13, line 5, leave out from “and” to end of line 6. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 (Requirement for taxi driver’s licence)
Amendment No 35 made: In page 15, line 34, leave out subsections (8) and (9). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23 (Taxi driver’s licences)
Amendment No 36 made: In page 16, line 32, leave out from “appeal” to end of line 33 and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department against”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 37 made: In page 16, line 36, at end insert
“(9A) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(9B) On an appeal under subsection (9), the Department may decide to¾
(a) confirm, reverse or vary the decision; or
(b) approve, revoke or vary the condition,
(as the case may be) as it thinks fit.
(9C) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (9B), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(9D) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (9B) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 (Issue of driver’s badges etc.)
Amendment No 38 made: In page 17, line 26, leave out from “and” to end of line 28. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27 (Suspension, revocation and curtailment under section 26: procedure etc.)
Amendment No 39 made: In page 19, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert
“(b) (subject to section 35), it shall direct in the notice when the suspension, revocation or curtailment is to take effect.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 40 made: In page 19, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert
“(3) A licence suspended under this Act shall remain suspended until such time as the Department by notice directs that the licence is again in force.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 41 made: In page 19, line 13, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 42 made: In page 19, line 14, at end insert
“(4A) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(4B) On an appeal under subsection (4), the Department may decide to confirm, reverse or vary the decision as it thinks fit.
(4C) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (4B), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(4D) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (4B) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28 (Variation of licence on request)
Amendment No 43 made: In page 19, line 41, leave out 
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 44 made: In page 19, line 42, at end insert -
“(9) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(10) On an appeal under subsection (8), the Department may decide to confirm, reverse or vary the decision as it thinks fit.
(11) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (10), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(12) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (10) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29 (Variation of operator’s licence by Department)
Amendment No 45 made: In page 20, leave out lines 15 to 20 and insert
“(b) (subject to section 35), it shall direct in the notice when the decision is to take effect.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 46 made: In page 20, line 21, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Amendment No 47 made: In page 20, line 22, at end insert
“(4A) The time within which a person may bring such an appeal is 21 days from the date on which the notice of the decision appealed against is served on the person.
(4B) On an appeal under subsection (4), the Department may decide to confirm, reverse or vary the decision as it thinks fit.
(4C) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (4B), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(4D) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (4B) may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against any such decision.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31 (Production of documents)
Amendment No 48 made: In page 21, line 31, leave out from “and” to end of line 32. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32 (Return of licences, etc.)
Amendment No 49 made: In page 22, line 23, leave out subsection (7). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 (Effect of appeal on decision appealed against)
Amendment No 50 made: After clause 35 insert
“Regulations in respect of appeals 
35A. The Department may by regulations make such further provision in respect of appeals under this Act as it considers necessary or expedient.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 (Enforcement notices)
Amendment No 51 made: In page 24, line 2, leave out from “and” to end of line 3. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 52 made: In page 24, line 14, leave out
“appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction”
and insert
“by notice appeal to the Department”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 53 made: In page 24, line 14, at end insert
“(6A) On an appeal under this section, the Department may either cancel or affirm the notice, and if it affirms it, it may do so either in its original form or with such modifications as the Department may in the circumstances think fit.
(6B) The Department shall, on making a decision under subsection (6A), give notice of the decision to the appellant including particulars of the grounds of the decision.
(6C) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Department under subsection (6A) may, within 21 days of the notice being served under subsection (6B), appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 54 made: In page 24, line 18, leave out “or with such” and insert
“, in its form as modified by the Department under subsection (6A) or with such other”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37 (Powers of entry)
Amendment No 55 made: In page 24, line 26, after “premises” insert “and any equipment”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 56 made: In page 24, line 36, after second “premises” insert “and any equipment”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38 (Power to stop and examine licensed taxis)
Amendment No 57 made: In page 26, line 3, leave out from “and” to end of line 4. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 39 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 (Taxi touts)
Amendment No 58 made: In page 28, line 10, leave out “20(2)(c)” and insert “20”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 59 made: In page 28, line 11, leave out subsection (4). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43 (False statements, forgery and power of seizure in connection with certain documents)
Amendment No 60 made: In page 28, line 36, leave out subsection (4). — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44 (Obstruction of authorised officers etc.)
Amendment No 61 made: In page 29, line 17, leave out from “and” to end of line 18. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 62 made: In page 29, line 26, leave out from “and” to end of line 27. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 63 made: In page 29, line 30, leave out from “and” to end of line 31. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 45 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 (Access to information)
Amendment No 64 made: After clause 48 insert
“Publication of information
48A.¾(1) The Department may publish, in such form and manner as it thinks appropriate, information in connection with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Before the Department publishes any such information under subsection (1), it shall take into consideration any recommendations made by the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52 (Restriction of application of other statutory provisions)
Amendment No 65 made: In page 31, line 3, at end insert
“(2A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2), for the purposes of section 14 of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 21) an operator’s licence which authorises the licensed operator to operate a taxi service for or in respect of the carriage of passengers at separate fares shall be deemed to be a road service licence granted or deemed to have been granted under Part 2 of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 (Ancillary and transitional provisions etc)
Amendment No 66 made: In page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (4) and insert
“(4) Subsection (5) applies to byelaws made or having effect as if made under Article 65 of the 1981 Order which
(a) relate to taxis; and
(b) are in force immediately before the coming into operation of section 52(1).
(5) Notwithstanding anything in section 52(1)
(a) provisions of those byelaws which could have been included in an
order under Article 27A of the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 shall have effect as if contained in such an order; and
(b) any other provisions of those byelaws shall have effect as if contained in regulations made under section 20.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 (Interpretation)
Amendment No 67 made: In page 32, line 22, at end insert “‘notice’ means notice in writing;”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57 (Commencement)
Amendment No 68 made: Leave out clause 57 and insert
“Commencement
57. This Act (except sections 53 to 55, this section and section 58) shall come into operation on such day or days as the Department may by order appoint.” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Clause 57, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 (Minor and consequential amendments)
Amendment No 69 made: In page 38, line 23, after “taxi” insert
“(within the meaning of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).] 
Amendment No 70 made: In page 38, line 39, at end insert
“4A. In section 37A (carrying of assistance dogs in private hire vehicles) —
(a) for ‘private hire vehicle’, each place it occurs, substitute ‘taxi’;
(b) in subsection (9)
(i) for the definition of “driver” substitute —
‘ “driver” means a person who holds a taxi driver’s licence granted under —
(a) Article 79A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981; or
(b) section 23 of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;’;
(ii) after the definition of “assistance dog” insert —
‘ “booking” means a taxi booking within the meaning given by section 55(1) of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;’;
(iii) for the definition of “operator” substitute —
‘ “ operator” means a person who holds an operator’s licence granted under section 2 of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008;” — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]

Arlene Foster: I beg to move amendment No 71: In page 39, line 29, after “charges),” insert “ —
(a) after the paragraph beginning ‘An offence under Article 19(1) or (3)’
insert —
‘An offence under Article 27A(2).’; and
(b)”.
At present, an anomaly exists whereby the Depart­ment for Regional Development is responsible for policy on the location of taxi ranks but my Department has responsibility for providing the necessary legislation. Clause 21 of the Bill removes that anomaly; in future, DRD will be responsible for both policy and legislation through the taxi regulation orders. This also creates the opportunity for taxi attendants to enforce any parking infringements of the taxi regulation orders, at ranks and elsewhere. The amendment, as suggested by the Committee, provides the necessary link with DRD’s Traffic Management (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 to make this happen. I agree with the amendment as we should utilise all available methods of enforcement.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to raise the role of traffic attendants, on which this amendment touches and to which the Minister referred. The Committee sought clarification on the role of traffic attendants and thought that it would be useful if they were to enforce parking infringements by taxi drivers at ranks or elsewhere. The Committee voted on the matter, and it is good that that led to progress in the form of a minor consequential amendment to DRD legislation, which is welcomed by the Committee.
The Committee’s working relationships with its officials and departmental officials have resulted in effective legislation, an increased number of amendments and strong positive scrutiny of the Bill. The product of those effective relationships is before the House today, and it is a useful example of how the scrutiny function of Committees, combined with a harmonious working relationship with the Department, can achieve much that is positive and tangible for the community.

Arlene Foster: I echo the words of the Chairperson of the Committee. Rather than cosiness for the sake of it, there was a good working relationship as the Committee worked through, scrutinised, and suggested necessary amendments to the Bill. Amendment 71 provides just one example of what can be done under devolution. I thank the Committee for its work over the course of 17 long meetings, and I thank departmental and Committee officials for all the work that they have done to bring the Bill to the House today.
Amendment No 71 agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 (Repeals)
Amendment No 72 made: In page 40, line 8, at end insert 
“The Road Traffic (Amendment) Article 6
(Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (NI 3) In Schedule 3, Part 2”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Amendment No 73 made: In page 40, line 9, Leave out “paragraph 16(2)” and insert
“paragraphs 16(2) and 21A(2)”. — [The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster).]
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Taxis Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Members may take their ease for a few minutes.

Budget Bill

Final Stage

Peter Robinson: I beg to move
That the Budget Bill [NIA 10/07] do now pass.
I thank the Chairperson and the members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel for agreeing to the accelerated passage of the Budget Bill. The debates on the Bill have, at times, been interesting, robust and — for the most part — constructive. I thank Members for their contributions and interest.
Members have had various opportunities to raise wide-ranging issues of concern through the debates on the Supply resolution on 11 February 2008, the Second Stage of the Budget Bill on 12 February 2008, the debate on the Budget 2008-11 last month, as well as this brief debate. I suspect that most Members are talked out on financial issues.
As I said on 11 February 2008, as we enter the three-year Budget period, Members and the Committees have a key role in holding Departments and Ministers to account on the delivery of the identified efficiencies and on the delivery of quality public services through the allocated funding. I urge the Committees to probe, scrutinise and challenge their respective Departments — including my own — to improve the outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland.
The strategic context for budgetary spending plans for the next three years is the Programme for Govern­ment, particularly the priority given to promoting the growth of a dynamic, innovative and strong economy. Alongside that, I recognise the importance of delivering modern, high-quality and efficient public services, and a sustained level of investment to ensure that the right infrastructure is in place to support those goals.
In that context — and as we move into the first year of the Budget period — rather than acting as an opposition, Committees should constructively challenge and assist Ministers and Departments to ensure that taxpayers receive value for money. They should also monitor the progress that is being made towards the targets set out in the Programme for Government.
We should not wait until the end of our three-year Programme for Government and Budget to discover that the targets that have been set have not been fully achieved. From this moment on, Committees need to monitor performance diligently. I have consistently commended the Budget to the House; it is to the advantage of every section of our community. I resent the simple analysis that some people have attempted to put on it by attaching one label or another. On the one hand, the Budget seeks to grow our economy in order to incentivise the business community and to build on the key drivers of the economy, while on the other hand, it puts considerably increased funds into improving our public services.

Stephen Farry: I promise not to keep the House too long — especially after the marathon Consideration Stage of the Taxis Bill that preceded this debate. I congratulate the House on getting through the Bill so efficiently.
The Alliance Party has already made clear its concerns about the incoming Budget: there are flaws in some respects and grounds for questions and scepticism in others. However, the party will not force a Division on the issue. The party recognises that the debate is about the spring Supplementary Estimates in relation to last year’s Budget and the 45% Vote on Account on the incoming financial year.
I want to return to some of the points that have been raised in previous discussions. The Minister of Finance and Personnel referred to labels and simplistic solutions. Although he was not staring at these Benches, I have no doubt that the Alliance Party was in his thoughts. Quite a lot of labels have been thrown at the Alliance Party about the assigning of different ideological motivations — most of them somewhat to the left of socialism. My party has sought to approach the Budget from a fundamentally liberal perspective, and the label which it will sign up to and stand by is that of liberalism, economic and social.
In general, the Alliance Party respects the right of the Minister and the Executive to set their Budget, because that is their role; they will do that by taking decisions on income and expenditure. Equally, the Alliance Party — which is not a part of the Executive — is perfectly within its rights to argue that things can be done differently, and that is what it has sought to do. The Alliance Party does not engage in opposition for opposition’s sake. For example, it has just agreed the Taxis Bill. When my party feels that the Executive are right, it will say so. There will be times when the Alliance Party votes with different parties in line with different proposals. On this occasion, things can be done differently.
The Alliance Party has had an interesting exchange with the Minister on some of the views of different non-governmental organisations; I have quoted the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Northern Ireland Community and Voluntary Association and the Economic Research Institute for Northern Ireland. The Minister has acknowledged in written answers that all those organisations have made points about Budget priorities and the approach taken to local taxation. In doing so, the Minister stated clearly that he disagrees with some of the points that those organisations have made, which is fair enough; he has the right to do so. I do not necessarily agree with all the points that those organisations have made; for example, I take a different view to the CBI over the issue of industrial derating. However, I have sought to point out that, politically, there are those — such as members of the Alliance Party — who take a different perspective, economically and socially, and it is healthy to voice those differences in a democratic society.
The Alliance Party has not produced an alternative, fully funded Budget. It does not have access to the resources to do so, and it does not have access to the Civil Service and detailed information on the subject. However, as an opposition, it has sought to raise questions and to present alternatives.
The Alliance Party has highlighted the issue of Deloitte’s cost of the divide report, and although that has been progressed — which is welcome — it is concerned that the report does not play a major role in short-term considerations. The party will certainly take up the Minister’s offer for a meeting on the subject — probably after Easter — when, no doubt, we will have a productive conversation.
The Alliance Party has tabled a no-day-named motion, through which we hope to give the House an opportunity to discuss those important issues in the near future.
We are at one with the Minister of Finance and Personnel in recognising the importance of efficiency savings, although with perhaps a different emphasis. At times, the Executive seem to view efficiency savings as a matter of doing the same things for less money. For the Alliance Party, efficiency savings are about shifting resources from old priorities to new ones. Mental-health services are a clear example of an area to which resources must be reallocated from certain activities.
We disagreed with the freezing of the regional rate at 0%. We feel that a figure around the rate of inflation would be more responsible. Again, the Executive have the right to set the rate at that level, if they so wish.
We have sought to highlight areas of public service in which spending is deficient. Let us start with health spending, which will be £200 million behind the level of expenditure that is required to keep up with the rate of investment in health in the rest of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the increased investment in health in the Budget, the level is still insufficient to keep up with the rate of health spending elsewhere. We are all aware that health is becoming a more costly area of public policy.
Transport and the environment are other areas that the Alliance Party has sought to highlight. We will have to set our own spending and income plans if we get into Government, but, at this stage, we have sought to highlight areas in which we feel there are deficiencies. We cannot address all areas of expenditure that we would like to address, given the resources that would become available under our plans; however, we would be able to make greater investments.
I wish to conclude by making two final points. First, we are concerned about the approach that has been taken to local taxation. We are concerned that we should not become locked into a financial straitjacket in which there is an expectation that services can be provided without raising taxes from the population of Northern Ireland. I am worried that the approach taken to the regional rate may be sending out that message. In future, when the Executive feel that they must raise more income from the population, they will have a greater mountain to climb in order to achieve that.
Secondly, there is a question about how the Budget interacts with the economy. In some respects the argument has been advanced that cutting public expenditure, or keeping increases to a minimum, helps the economy. It is a matter of shrinking the public sector in relation to the private sector. I agree with the Minister’s objectives of trying to grow the economy in Northern Ireland. We need a bigger private sector in relation to the public sector, and we must tackle the productivity gap that exists between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. However, there is a valid argument that, in order to achieve those aims, one should invest resources in the drivers of the economy, such as transport infrastructure, skills or innovation, to name only three key areas. That is what the CBI was pointing out when it said that more investment in the economic drivers could be made, rather than cutting household taxation to the level that the Minister seeks.
Perhaps there should be more emphasis on business taxation. We disagree with the Minister’s approach to industrial derating — it is an antiquated approach to supporting business — but reducing corporation tax has major attractions for business in Northern Ireland. There is a concern that, although the Varney Review ruled out lowering the corporation tax differential at this stage, if a lower differential were to be achieved in the future, there would be insufficient provision in the Budget to allow us to fund the gap in resources that would arise from it.
The Alliance Party is content that the Budget Bill should pass Final Stage. No doubt we will return to many of the topics that we have raised when, in June, the House debates the second Budget Bill, which will give full effect to the Budget.

Peter Robinson: The Member for North Down is right to raise any questions and concerns, and I defend that right. I have sat too long on opposition Benches and know from my own experiences the difficulties in the role of opposition. The opposition has not the same access to statistics or to the necessary policy levers to be able to challenge Government.
I urge the Member to continue raising the questions: it keeps Government on its toes, and that is what oppositions are for. However, Dr Farry should recognise the special system that we have in the Assembly. The strong Committee system provides resources that can form a basis for challenge to Government. He can use those facilities. The Finance and Personnel Committee has not only challenged Government, but, in many cases, raised issues which I have been happy to take on board. No one in the Department of Finance and Personnel believes that the sole font of wisdom lies in Craigantlet Buildings.
I defend the Member’s right to raise questions and speak on these issues, and I am pleased that he does not intend to divide the House this evening. If he were, we might have difficulty producing a majority; however, if he were to win, there might be difficulties in financing Departments. That would not be in his interest.
I will touch on the main points that the Member has raised. He talked of doing things differently. However, it is not just about doing things differently: it is about doing them better. One can do things differently, but that is of no advantage to the people of Northern Ireland unless it represents an improvement. I have heard nothing in the Alliance Party’s proposals that suggests that it proposes something better. I do not believe that the community in Northern Ireland thinks that the Alliance Party’s proposal to tax and spend should be indulged. I do not believe that it is the view of the people that rates should be increased, considering the heavy burden that they have had to carry over the past five years, with a 60% increase in rates. I do not believe that a proposition which will raise £7 million in the next financial year is the way to go, considering the additional burden it will put on the people of Northern Ireland — particularly in the light of the Executive’s proposal for a 3% efficiency drive that will bring in, and free up for front-line services, £790 million. In my view, that is the way to go.
The Member frequently calls to his aid the CBI, as though it were supporting his party’s position. That is most certainly not the case. He has disagreed with some of the policies of the CBI. I have said that the CBI is fundamentally wrong in wanting domestic rates to be increased but being content with a freeze on rates on commercial premises. People can make their own judgement as to the interest that the CBI might have in that. We can all disagree with individual policies.
I have met the CBI since I last spoke on financial issues in the House, and I assure the Member that it warmly supported the position adopted by the Executive in the Budget, but I heard no praise for the Alliance Party’s proposals. Before the Member calls the CBI to his aid again, he may want to have a chat with that organisation to see how much he has in common with it and how much support it has for his policies.
The Member raised two matters: one was the cost of division, the other health. I have cast out this worm on several occasions, but I am still waiting for someone to bite. I keep hearing about a meeting that the Alliance Party will have with me, but I still await a letter seeking it. I assure that party that I will speedily react.
I will even take a verbal request.

David Ford: Unless my memory is very much mistaken, the Minister was given that verbal request the last time we debated the issue.

Peter Robinson: I am sure that my Department will be happy to take a verbal request, if that is all that I am going to get. I am happy to set up the meeting and discuss the issue. When we do discuss the issue, the Member will find no reticence on my part to salvage any possible additional finances out of savings that can be made from the removal of division in our society. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the big sums associated with the cost of division are largely in education, where an immediate or medium-term gain will not be made. None of that should stop us from trying to move in that direction. Successes can be achieved by using the funding that goes into policing and security, although that funding would not go into the Northern Ireland block grant. Funding for other areas, such as community centres and recreational facilities, go into the coffers of local government. I am happy to discuss all of those issues, and the Member will find that I am not applying the handbrake to any benefits that might be gained.
All Members recognise the critical role that is to be played by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. He deserves the support of the House in the difficult task that he faces. He must administer a budget of £4 billion, which is a significant amount of money. We have been able to secure flexibility for his budget, which will make it much simpler for him to do his task, and I am sure that he will use that flexibility. On top of that, he has the advantage of being able to use any additional savings that he can gain in the Department. However, I recognise that those savings will not take place in the early part of the CSR period. I have no doubt that, if the Minister experiences difficulties, he will bring those to the Executive.
If one examines the allocations to health over previous years, one will see that this is the largest health budget that has been available to any Minister. It represents a larger chunk of the overall Northern Ireland block grant than any Health Minister has had before. I had hoped that the Member for North Down Dr Farry would have welcomed that.
Dr Farry referred to interaction with the rest of the economy. In my opening remarks, I said that growth of the economy is a priority. We intend to encourage the key drivers of the economy, including skills, innovation and infrastructure. Additional funding has been put into those areas, and the increases are greater for those Departments that are responsible for those areas. In itself, the Budget cannot provide growth: it can encourage growth, but it will be down to those Departments to produce the policies that will provide growth in the economy. Therefore, the burden lies with the appropriate Ministers.
This is a good Budget for Northern Ireland. The Executive and the Assembly have a responsibility to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The Budget, the Programme for Government and the investment strategy give us the tools with which we can create a better standard of living for the people of Northern Ireland and improve and grow our economy. I hope that the Committees will play a full role in ensuring that Departments deliver in each of their areas of responsibility. It is the responsibility of Ministers to deliver, and it is the responsibility of the Committees to ensure that they do so.

Mr Speaker: Before the Question is put, I remind the House that the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Budget Bill [NIA 10/07] do now pass.

Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008

Reg Empey: I beg to move
That the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 be approved.
The regulations are subject to the affirmative-resolution procedure, as laid down in the parent legislation, the Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The regulations were laid in draft form on 24 January, and it is intended that they will come into operation on 6 April 2008.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)
The regulations amend the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005. The 2005 regulations protect the interests of those who use the services of employment agencies and businesses, that is, work-seekers and hirers, and put in place minimum standards that work-seekers and hirers can expect, such as the provision of terms and conditions, restrictions on charging fees to work-seekers, and proper handling of clients’ moneys.
The Assembly recently debated the issue of agency workers, and I do not propose to cover the same ground today. However, I must say that the vast majority of employment agencies and businesses are reputable companies that treat work-seekers fairly.
The private-recruitment sector has made a significant and positive contribution to our local economy. There are undoubted benefits, both for employers and workers who avail themselves of the services provided by the private-recruitment sector. Employers benefit from the flexibility that agency workers bring to their businesses, particularly during fluctuations in demand. Moreover, agency work allows companies to increase production on a temporary basis before committing permanently to expansion.
Furthermore, agency workers benefit from the flexibility of such work if, for example, they have to balance work with other responsibilities. For some, agency work is a gateway to permanent work.
All Members of the Assembly are, however, aware of cases in which disreputable agencies have broken the law. If approved, the regulations will provide additional protections for vulnerable work-seekers by addressing known bad practices, without imposing excessive regulatory burdens on the reputable side of the sector.
Agency workers are currently covered by many of the same rights as permanent employees, including the right not to be discriminated against, to be paid at least the national minimum wage, to paid holiday entitlement, and to receive statutory maternity and paternity pay. However, there is a need for additional protections for vulnerable workers.
In summary, the amending regulations will provide for workers to be given a clear right to withdraw from accommodation, transport or other paid-for services provided by an agency, without suffering any detriment. Furthermore, they provide for workers to receive a written statement of their right to withdraw from those services.
There will be a notice period of five working days for a right to withdraw from extra services, with the exception of accommodation, which will require a notice period of 10 working days.
It is already an offence to make an offer of a job conditional on a worker’s paying for other services; however, these measures will go a step further by giving agency workers the right to withdraw from such services without suffering detriment. In the main, the measures are likely to benefit migrant workers, who may have signed up for services provided by agencies. It will be a criminal offence for an agency not to comply with these measures, and, in serious cases, my Department can prosecute agencies that are breach of the law in the Magistrates’ Courts.
In the most severe cases, the Department can apply to an industrial tribunal to prohibit an individual from operating an employment agency for up to 10 years.
In addition, the amending regulations will ban entertainment and modelling agencies from taking any fee for work-finding services on the day of a casting session and from offering to include the work seeker’s details in a publication. I intend that, in those circum­stances, work seekers will be given a seven-day cooling-off period in which to change their minds. That is another area in which work seekers and workers are seen as vulnerable, because many of them are under 18. Also, modelling and entertainment agencies are the only agencies that can charge work seekers a fee for work-finding services, which means that additional safeguards are necessary.
One point of clarification and two minor, miscellaneous changes to the 2005 regulations are also proposed. Regulation 7 will clarify the fact that the prohibition on an employment agency’s disclosing information about a work seeker does not apply when the agency has received information that a worker whom it has supplied may be unsuitable. The 2005 regulations make provision for work seekers who are incorporated — that is, they are limited companies — to opt out of the regulations. Regulation 8 will require an agency to inform a hirer if an incorporated work seeker supplied by that agency has opted out of the regulations. Regulation 9 will list clothes, hair and make-up stylists as part of the entertainment and modelling sector, wherein agencies are permitted to charge a fee for work-finding services.
Finally, as a deregulatory measure, it is proposed to ease the administrative burden on employment businesses in respect of repeat short-term assignments. In those circumstances, only basic information, such as the identity of the hirer, will have to be provided to the work seeker. That change will have no effect on the protection of agency workers. Before agencies can take advantage of that new measure, they must first provide the worker and the hirer with all the essential information — such as rate of pay, etc — in writing, with the agency’s terms and conditions.
In addition, my Department is working on guidance to assist vulnerable work seekers and workers. That includes guidance to be printed and distributed to migrant workers before they leave their home countries. Those publications are being developed by officials in my Department, in conjunction with Whitehall’s Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and will provide advice on agency workers’ entitlements under employment law, as well as on issues such as the national minimum wage and the cost of living in the United Kingdom. Those measures were mentioned on numerous occasions during the debate on 15 January, so I know that several Members feel strongly about them.
There is also advice for drivers, driver-hire agencies and the companies that use them, warning of the dangers of coercing or colluding with drivers to work excessive hours. There is also advice for would-be actors and models on their rights when they sign up with an entertainment or modelling agency. With regard to the former group — drivers — some concern was expressed in the House in November, when a company went into receivership, that such practices were taking place. I do not know whether that was the case, but I know that Members were concerned that we should have some sense of, and control over, those matters.
This is a modest, targeted package of proposals that is designed to provide additional protections for vulnerable work seekers while not unduly adding to the regulatory burden on the private-recruitment sector. In fact, reputable agencies will benefit from the regulations because they will not be unfairly disadvantaged in comparison with agencies that mistreat workers or abuse the law in order to make money.
I am grateful to the Committee for Employment and Learning for its detailed scrutiny of the policy proposals and the regulations. At its meeting on 6 February, the Committee recommended that the regulations be approved by the Assembly.

Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of the Committee for Employment and Learning, I support the motion. As the Minister highlighted, the Committee unanimously supported the regulations.
This is an important issue, and it has been of interest to all Members, not just those on the Committee for Employment and Learning. On 15 January, a motion on agency workers tabled by Mitchel McLaughlin generated significant interest from all parties. I thank the Minister and his officials for their consultation with the Committee on this important statutory rule. On 9 January, departmental officials fully briefed the Committee on the secondary legislation and on the relevant wider consultation.
The purpose of the statutory rule is to increase the protection afforded to people seeking employment. Where an employment agency makes provision for accommodation or transport, it also provides protection for fee-charging practices of agencies in the entertain­ment and modelling sector. Some Members may consider that the subordinate legislation is limited in its scope. However, the issue of linking employment to other components, such as transport and accommodation, is a controversial area that is open to abuse. It is essential that workers do not suffer any detriment with regard to those employment add-ons. It is important that the modelling and entertainment industries be given particular attention in the legislation, as they employ potentially vulnerable young women.
The competitiveness of our local economy should be based on a skilled and educated workforce that has the opportunity to learn and to adapt to fast-changing economic circumstances. Exploitation of agency employees should not be used as an excuse for flexibility in the workplace. There are many issues with respect to agency workers, and I am sure that Members will address those in future. Nevertheless, the regulations can only strengthen the position of agency workers, and that should be welcomed. Go raibh maith agat.

Alex Attwood: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the proposed regulations. Anything that creates higher standards and additional protections is to be welcomed. In the past two weeks, there was a debate in the Dáil on the protection of agency and immigrant workers. Moreover, in the past few days, a private Member’s Bill received support in the House of Commons. There may be some merit in taking forward those issues not only with the North/South Ministerial Council, but with the British-Irish Council, because legislatures in other parts of these islands are touching on the very issues that we touch on today.
The SDLP sees the issue as a work in progress. At Westminster, the British Prime Minister had to intervene on a Private Member’s Bill giving new rights to agency workers. That highlights the importance of the issue.
Mindful of what may or may not happen at West­minster, we would like further protections and enhance­ments for agency workers. Although there was consensus on the issue some weeks ago following a debate in the Assembly, the SDLP was close to forcing a division, as we felt that the motion as amended was in danger of not going far enough to protect agency workers. Nonetheless, the SDLP welcomes the regulations. They go some way further in protecting workers, and that can only be a welcome development.

Reg Empey: I thank the Committee Chairperson for her comments, and I repeat my thanks to the Committee for its studious attention to the regulations. It is important that we work together on these matters to see whether it is possible to improve and speed the passage of important regulations.
I also note the Chairperson’s reference to the debate in the Assembly on 15 January. It is fair to say that widespread concern was expressed on all sides of the House on that occasion about a number of issues, and several Members have raised similar issues today. One Member gave the example of a house that is being occupied by agency workers who are being charged an enormous rent. There are two Members from East Antrim in the Chamber at present, and I assume that neither of them own the property referred to — but maybe they do. However, such issues can be dealt with through these regulations, which will give workers the right to receive written confirmation of their rights and the right to withdraw from their accommodation with 10 working days notice and without any detriment to their well-being. That is now a legal right that Members on all sides of the House will welcome.
Several other matters were raised by Members in the debates, and those raised by Mr Spratt are being pursued. It is, therefore, clear that Members are concerned about issues relating to agency workers.
Mr Attwood referred to recent debates in the Dáil and in Westminster. I am aware of both of those debates, and my Department is following them closely. We noticed the involvement of the Member for Foyle in the debate at Westminster, because we keep abreast of such debates.
I am aware of the strength of feeling that exists. However, I do not want to give the impression that I will be rushing to introduce proposals based on those discussions to the Chamber, but we will look closely and monitor what happens. The arguments and language being used in both jurisdictions are similar. We are all trying to stop people being exploited; it is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Problems relating to agency workers are not confined to Ireland or the United Kingdom; they are European issues. However, the whole thing has stalled because of differences of opinion in member states. There are collective agreements in some European countries that circumvent the rights of agency workers. In fact, people often end up being paid below the appropriate level. There is, therefore, a range of complicated issues to be considered.
We must be careful, because, if we overreact, we will create an anti-competitive position for ourselves and make our labour market less flexible, which is not in the interests of employers nor workers.
The Department is following the debates in the Dáil and Westminster closely, and the outcomes in those jurisdictions will inform the Executive and the Committee regarding any further proposals that we might wish to make. I understand that the next Presidency of the Council of the European Union — which, I think, will be France and which will begin in July — wants to make a drive on this issue, and it will be interesting to see if that manifests itself in any agreement.
I thank Members for their contributions, and I am pleased that we have broad support for the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 be approved.

Pensions Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Margaret Ritchie: I beg to move
That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Pensions Bill as introduced in the House of Commons dealing with the Pensions Regulator Tribunal, information relating to private pensions policy and retirement planning, the power to establish a pension scheme, the remit of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund; and of amendments to that Bill introducing new provisions to the Financial Assistance Scheme.

Mark Durkan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some colleagues and I tabled an amendment to the motion, not to delete or remove any part of it, but to add a specific point to the end that might remove the anomaly under the financial assistance scheme that particularly affects people in Northern Ireland who are members of the Desmond and Sons Ltd pension scheme. The Speaker has seen fit not to allow that amendment, and I would like an explanation of that decision. Given that some Members are encouraging English MPs to table amendments to the Pensions Bill in Westminster in order to deal with that matter, it seems strange that Members of this House are not allowed to address the issue, which affects people in Northern Ireland more than anywhere else.

Francie Molloy: Decisions about the selection of amendments are a matter for the Speaker and, by convention, it is not appropriate to give reasons for accepting or rejecting amendments to the motion. Of course, during the debate, the Member may refer to the points that his amendment would have addressed.

Margaret Ritchie: The legislative consent motion deals with the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Pensions Bill, as introduced to the House of Commons on 5 December 2007, which deals with the pension regulator tribunal, in clause 36; information relating to private-pensions policy and retirement planning, in clause 43; the power to establish a pension scheme, in Part 1, chapter 4; the proposed personal accounts delivery authority, in Part 1, chapter 5; the pension protection fund in clauses 95 and 98; the fraud compensation fund in clause 98; and amendments to the Pensions Bill that deal with the financial assistance scheme.
The Bill includes measures to progress proposals set out in the White Paper, ‘Personal accounts: a new way to save’, which was published in December 2006. In due course, I will propose corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. However, there are several of the Bill’s provisions that should be extended to Northern Ireland, because they are in Northern Ireland people’s interests and because the Bill will amend Westminster legislation that already covers Northern Ireland.
With respect to the power to establish a pension scheme, the primary aim of the Bill is to enable people who do not save for retirement to contribute to a low-cost portable pension scheme. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be empowered to establish a scheme and provide for its administration and management, and, from 2012, the proposed personal account scheme will extend the benefits of private saving to those people on low or moderate incomes who do not have access to a good-quality employer-sponsored pension scheme. The scheme will complement, rather than replace, existing employer provision, and will be set up as a trust. A trustee corporation will be established to act in the interests of scheme members.
Personal accounts will be delivered using private-sector expertise working within a remit set by Government. The scheme will act as a large multi-employer pension scheme. The advantage of that model is that the scheme will have significant investment power and charges can be kept to a minimum. A separate scheme for Northern Ireland would operate on a much smaller scale, and there are questions about its sustain­ability. It is also likely that charges to cover running costs would be higher and the scheme’s investment power significantly smaller, and that would directly affect the amounts which savers would ultimately receive. Extending the scheme to Northern Ireland will give people here the same rights of access to it and the same benefits that are enjoyed by people in England, Scotland and Wales.
The Bill contains amendments to Westminster legislation that already extends to Northern Ireland. For example, the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority was established in 2007 by the Pensions Act 2004 and operates on a UK-wide basis, which is consistent with other bodies in the pensions field, such as the Pensions Regulator and the pension protection fund. The Personal Accounts Delivery Authority acts in an advisory capacity, preparing for the establishment of the personal accounts scheme. The Bill will extend the authority’s remit and see it move to undertaking the executive and contracting work required to prepare for the introduction of the scheme. As the authority already operates on a UK-wide basis, it is necessary for the proposed amendments to be of a UK-wide extent.
The financial assistance scheme was established on a UK-wide basis by the Pensions Act 2004, and its functions are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The scheme offers financial help to some people who lost their savings as a result of the collapse of employer-sponsored pension schemes and who are not covered by the pension protection fund. Following the Young Report into ways of generating additional value from failed pension schemes, the financial assistance scheme will be extended and improvements will be introduced. For example, scheme members will be guaranteed 90% of their accrued pension instead of the present 80%. That will be subject to a cap of £26,000.
Although many of the changes can be made by subordinate legislation, the Bill will enable the financial assistance scheme to cover more people. Further amendments are expected during the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords. In order to ensure that people here benefit from the enhancement of the financial assistance scheme, the amendments must be of UK-wide extent.
The Bill contains amendments to the Pensions Act 2004 and the Social Security Act 1998. The amend­ments will extend the remit of the Pensions Regulator tribunal to provide the right of appeal against determin­ations of the Pensions Regulator relating to the personal accounts scheme; extend existing provision regarding the use and supply of information for private pensions policy and retirement planning to cover information held by the Pensions Regulator and to include the personal accounts scheme; and provide for payments in respect of pension compensation, sharing on divorce and other similar matters to be made from the pension protection fund. Coincidentally, the Bill will introduce compensation sharing to bring compensation payments into line with rules on pension sharing. The amendments will also provide for interest charged for the late payment of the pension protection levy to be paid by the pension protection fund and will provide for interest charged for the late payment of the fraud compensation levy to be paid into the fraud compensation fund.
The provisions to be amended already extend to Northern Ireland. It is necessary, therefore, for those amendments to be of a UK-wide extent. As pensions are a transferred matter under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the approval of the Assembly is required for including those issues in the Westminster Pensions Bill.
My party colleague the Member for Foyle Mr Durkan wrote to me about a particular matter that he raised in another place, and I wish to provide him with some information.
The Desmonds’ pension scheme is one of a small number of pension schemes that falls between the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme. The employer became insolvent too early to qualify for the Pension Protection Fund, but the winding up of the pension scheme was delayed until after April 2005, and the scheme is ineligible for help under the financial assistance scheme. However, we must not forget that people in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland are members of the Desmonds’ scheme, and my officials have worked strenuously with their counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions to find a solution to this problem because we realise their particular difficulties.
It would be unfortunate if the positive steps taken to provide financial support to scheme members who find themselves with reduced pensions were undermined by a small number of schemes that have unintentionally fallen through the cracks. So, in that context, and on foot of representations from my colleague Mr Durkan, I also wrote to the Minister of State for Pensions Reform, Mike O’Brien, in support of the work to resolve that unfortunate situation. I know that my colleague has already talked to the Minister of State about that issue.
The financial assistance scheme was set up under Westminster legislation, and, as I said earlier, it operates on a UK-wide basis. Its functions are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Any extension of the scheme to cater for circumstances such as those involving the Desmonds’ scheme would, as the Member knows, be carried by Westminster legislation extending to Northern Ireland. Should the Westminster Bill amend the financial assistance scheme to cater for the Desmonds’ scheme and other similar schemes, I believe that the wording of the motion would allow for such extensions. I am hopeful that, in such circumstances, there could be — and will be — a satisfactory resolution to this situation. Like the Member, I hope that there can be good news for the people who worked for Desmonds’.
In conclusion, at their meetings of 18 December 2007 and 13 February 2008, the Executive endorsed proposals for a legislative consent motion. I have also spoken to the Minister of State, Mike O’Brien, about these particular issues. The Social Development Committee also considered the proposals, at its meetings on 13 December 2007 and 7 February 2008, and indicated its support for the motion. I thank the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Hilditch, and the Committee for that. I trust that Members will agree that these amendments are both necessary and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

David Hilditch: The Westminster Pensions Bill includes provision to establish a personal accounts scheme, extend the remit of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority and make amendments to provisions of Westminster Acts that deal with transferred matters that are already extended to Northern Ireland.
The Bill is part of an overall pension reform package. An integral part of the reform package is the aim to introduce a simple low-cost system of personal accounts for those who currently do not save for retirement or do not have access to an occupational pension scheme. The Bill deals with the setting up of the personal accounts scheme as regards its design, governance and funding. The establishment of a separate scheme for Northern Ireland would bring all sorts of financial implications, and, as the Minister has rightly said, because a Northern Ireland scheme would operate on a smaller scale, there would be a question mark over its sustainability. Furthermore, the investment power of a separate Northern Ireland scheme would be significantly less than that of one which operates on a UK-wide basis.
The Pensions Act 2007 established the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority to act in an advisory capacity on the detailed design of personal accounts. The authority already operates on a UK-wide basis, and the Bill will extend its remit in relation to its functions and how it operates. The Committee warmly welcomes the extension of the financial assistance scheme to help those who have lost their savings when an employer-sponsored pension scheme has collapsed.
The scheme is being extended so that members will be guaranteed, as the Minister said, 90% of their accrued pension at the date on which the scheme began to wind up; payment of assistance derived from pension accrued post-1997; and payment of assistance from each scheme’s normal retirement age. Furthermore, people who are unable to work because of ill health will be able to apply for early access to payments; members will be able to draw on a tax-free lump sum if their share of the funds allows it; and assistance will be paid to members of schemes that wound up underfunded, where the employer is still solvent.
The extension has been seen as a real victory for those who campaigned for it. Not only does it mean security for individuals, but it also means security in retirement for their families.
The Committee for Social Development supports the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Pensions Bill as introduced in the House of Commons.

Mickey Brady: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Organisations that represent older people, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, have welcomed the Pensions Bill, which is seen as a positive package of reform that will change the face of retirement saving, and finally make pension saving worthwhile for the majority. The Bill will also give many women access to a decent pension for the first time.
It is essential that people benefit from saving. Good-quality information and advice about pensions and savings should be available to everyone. The interaction between means-tested benefits and personal accounts should be considered carefully.
An adequately funded, generic, financial advice service should be established to help individuals make financial decisions in general, including decisions about retirement planning. Ideally, state pensions would be set at a higher rate so that fewer people are drawn into means-testing. People’s existing rights to various elements of the state pension — specifically SERPS and graduated retirement benefit — will be consolidated.
The Bill will ensure the entitlement to basic state pension for women and carers by reducing to 30 the number of qualifying years.
Unfortunately, however, there is significant complexity in the pension system, which contributes to the continuing problem of low uptake of pension credit and other benefits amongst pensioners. Action is required to address that issue to ensure that pensioners who are eligible for benefits are identified and the appropriate assistance provided to ensure that they receive those benefits. Go raibh maith agat.

Mark Durkan: Like other Members, I welcome this legislative consent motion as it will ensure that the Assembly supports the extension of key parts of the Pensions Bill to Northern Ireland.
The Pensions Bill has many positive aspects, including the fact that it will seal the benefits of the topping-up of the financial assistance scheme, which was long overdue, and for which trade unions and pensioner interest groups campaigned vigorously. It is to the credit of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and the current Minister of State for Pensions Reform, Mike O’Brien, that that was achieved.
The Bill has other welcome aspects, including the future pensions regime, which will make matters more comprehensible, accessible and workable in the future. However, there is one outstanding anomaly that affects a key group of pensioners in Northern Ireland who are members of the Desmond and Sons pension and life assurance scheme. Although many of those affected are in my own constituency of Foyle, membership is not confined to that area.
As the Minister reflected, those people have been caught in a particular calendar warp, which was not intended when Parliament first legislated on the issue. At that time, the Government believed that all schemes would be covered by the pension protection fund or the financial assistance scheme.
However, because of the calendar warp, and because the date of insolvency was before 6 April 2005, and the formal wind-up was after 6 April 2005, members of the Desmond and Sons scheme find themselves, along with only two other known schemes, denied the benefits of either the pension protection fund or the financial assistance scheme.
From a number of meetings that I had with the Minister of State for Pensions and the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about the issue, I had believed that the matter might be resolved by secondary legislation.
However, it is now clear that it can be dealt with only by primary legislation, which will, in effect, necessitate a further amendment to the Pensions Bill that is going through Westminster. Only last week, as MP for Foyle, I managed to persuade another Member of Parliament to table an amendment at the Committee Stage of the Bill. It covered the pension scheme at Desmonds’ and the schemes at Stanley Press Equipment Ltd and Pinney’s, both of which affect many fewer people. The amendment would have removed the anomaly and admitted those companies to the financial assistance scheme. However, the mechanism of parliamentary procedure meant that the amendment was withdrawn when the Minister promised further consideration of the matter.
I hope that I will have the support of MPs from Northern Ireland, as I have of MPs from elsewhere, when I table an amendment at Report Stage to try to address the issue. However, it will be difficult to persuade the Speaker at Westminster to select that amendment. That is why I am disappointed that the Assembly could not accommodate an amendment to specifically address the Desmonds’ issue. To have been able to say that the legislative consent motion in the Assembly referred specifically to the matter would have provided wind assistance at Westminster. However, the SDLP will take any other chances to address the matter. My colleagues and I tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, and I am glad that the Minister had indicated that the final line of her motion, dealing with amendments to the financial assistance scheme, could encompass other, subsequent amendments. I take some comfort from the Minister’s assurance.
It is an important issue, because the Desmonds’ scheme has 348 members — many more than the other two schemes — and there have been significant cuts to those members’ pensions. It is not a theoretical problem or a problem in waiting for those yet to reach pensionable age. It is a real problem for people now who, through no fault of their own, are being denied pensions that they earned, that they paid for, to which they are entitled and which they had been receiving. It is worthwhile for the Assembly to make it clear, in everything that is said in relation to the Pensions Bill, that it would welcome a resolution to that issue.
In another place, I will make every effort possible to ensure that that happens. However, I reserve the right to return to the Assembly, with colleagues, to table a specific motion to ensure success in gaining favour with the Speaker and other MPs in Westminster to resolve the issue. I believe that the Minister of State for Pensions Reform is sympathetic. Obviously, there are particular issues that he needs to deal with, but he has told me that he would welcome any positive pressure that can be brought to bear. I want to use today to amplify that positive pressure.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank Members for their contributions. I am grateful to Mr Hilditch for offering support on behalf of the Committee for Social Development, and I appreciate the positive manner in which the Committee dealt with the proposals for the legislative consent motion.
I noted Mr Brady’s comments, and I will consider them when I introduce corresponding legislation for Northern Ireland.
I commend Mr Durkan for his efforts on behalf of the members of the Desmonds’ scheme, and I hope that I have been able to reassure him of my commitment to working with the Minister of State for Pensions Reform, Mike O’Brien, to seek a satisfactory resolution. On foot of the correspondence that I have sent, I will continue to pursue this issue, which directly affects several residents of Northern Ireland. It is my duty and responsibility to exert as much pressure as possible to obtain a satisfactory outcome.
I reiterate that the Department is content that the wording of the motion is such as to enable any amendment that relates to Desmonds’ to apply in Northern Ireland. Notwithstanding that, I hope for an acceptable resolution, and I will continue to pursue the matter with the Minister of State for Pensions Reform.
I hope that I have answered all the issues that Members raised, and, if not, I will write to the Members concerned. Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your forbearance, and I thank Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of provisions of the Pensions Bill as introduced in the House of Commons dealing with the Pensions Regulator Tribunal, information relating to private pensions policy and retirement planning, the power to establish a pension scheme, the remit of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority, the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund; and of amendments to that Bill introducing new provisions to the Financial Assistance Scheme.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker.]

Adjournment

Preschool Educational Provision in the Lagan Valley Constituency

Francie Molloy: The proposer of the topic for debate will have 15 minutes in which to speak, Members who wish to speak will have eight minutes and the Minister will have 10 minutes.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of preschool educational provision in the Lagan Valley constituency, which I have been privileged to represent for almost 12 years.
Education is a major source of debate and is important to many people in Northern Ireland, not least in the area that I represent, where parents, particularly those who have children who are entering the primary-school system, are anxious that their children achieve their best. In my new position as a junior Minister, I have responsibility for children and young people. I look forward to working with the Department of Education to address issues that relate to our strategy for children and young people. Preschool education is a vital part of that strategy and is crucial to the develop­ment of a first-class education system in Northern Ireland.
I acknowledge that the Department of Education has been generous to the Lagan Valley constituency in preschool provision since 1997. Most of the children in the constituency have access to preschool education. However, there are significant pockets of the constituency where there are children who are significantly disadvantaged because they do not have access to preschool provision. That matter must be addressed.
A programme of investment in young children up to the age of six is required. James Heckman, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Economics, has said:
“The first six years of a child’s life are crucial in terms of their social and cognitive development, ironically however this is the time when the least funding is made available.”
Although there has been a marked increase in the funding for preschool provision in Northern Ireland, as I have indicated, there are some gaps that must be addressed. Although my remarks are confined to preschool education, there are other areas that affect our younger children that I want to address in my new role to ensure that they get the best start in life.
I draw the Minister of Education’s attention to one of the most beautiful parts of my constituency — the Dromara hills. The Minister will be familiar with the area because the constituency of South Down borders Lagan Valley around Finnis. There is a polling station at St Michael’s Primary School in Finnis, where the ballot boxes are divided between Lagan Valley and South Down. That is the interface between the two constituencies. A few miles from St Michael’s Primary School is Fair Hill Primary School, which is one of the most blessed schools in Northern Ireland because of the magnificent view that it has.
There is a beautiful view out over the Lagan valley all the way down to Belfast, with the Dromara hills as the backdrop. Fair Hill is therefore an appropriate name for the school.
The school has an excellent leadership. The principal, Cynthia Clingham, her staff, the parent-teacher associ­ation, the parents themselves, and everyone who is involved, make a community contribution, and the school is right at the heart of the community. The school has been expanding to the point where the Southern Education and Library Board is hoping to introduce a development proposal for an additional classroom to accommodate the extra children. Included in that development proposal is a nursery unit for the school.
As the Minister will know from her own constituency experience, the Dromara hills are home to a wide and scattered rural community. The village of Kinallen, where Fair Hill Primary School is located, is at the heart of that community. However, Fair Hill Primary School needs that nursery unit. I represent parents who live in the Kinallen area who have to travel six miles each day to access pre-school educational provision, mainly in the town of Dromore. Sometimes those parents obtain places for their children in the pre-school playgroup in Dromara Primary School. That excellent playgroup is under the leadership of Violet Woods and her team, and Stanley Poots, the school principal. However, it is wrong that the parents in the Kinallen and Waringsford areas have to take their children six or seven miles — which is just one leg of the journey — to a playgroup. Those parents make that journey four times a day, resulting in a 24- or 25-mile round trip just to place their children in a pre-school facility, even though an excellent primary school in their local community is crying out for a nursery unit.
In 2007-08, the primary 1 intake for Fair Hill Primary School was 40 pupils, which is quite remarkable for a rural primary school of that nature. The school has already 36 potential pupils registered for 2008-09, and 34 potential pupils for 2009-10. It is a successful school, and I have no doubt about its future. There is no question mark over the school. Therefore, when the Minister receives the development proposal, I urge her to consider it favourably and act with expediency to introduce it so that approval can be granted and Fair Hill Primary School can proceed with establishing its nursery unit. It will take several months to get planning permission for that unit, but we hope to have it up and running as soon as possible.
I will now move across the Lagan valley to Moira on the other side of the valley. The Minister knows that she and I have corresponded on development proposal 176 for a pre-school nursery unit at Moira Primary School. Indeed, that development proposal was first published in September 2003 as development proposal 165. It was placed on hold pending the completion of the Department’s review of pre-school provision in the Moira area.
The South Eastern Education and Library Board initiated the current development proposal 176 in October 2006. I understand that all stages of that proposal are now completed and that it is awaiting a ministerial decision. Moira is one of the significant growth areas in the Lagan Valley constituency. Its population has at least tripled over the past 15 to 20 years. The school is full and its prospects are excellent. I see no good reason why Moira Primary School should not have a nursery unit. It is in a growth area, and Moira Primary School is by far the largest primary school in the locality. I urge the Minister to please make a decision on development proposal 176 as soon as possible in order to end the uncertainty.
Parents are asking me and my colleagues from Lagan Valley when they will hear a decision on the nursery unit at Moira Primary School. There is no good reason for holding back that decision any longer. A strong case has been made for the unit, and I urge the Minister to respond to the development proposal in the affirmative.
St Colman’s Primary School in Lambeg, on the edge of Lisburn, has received approval for a new school building. Both the South Eastern Education and Library Board and the CCMS have supported St Colman’s in its quest to have a pre-school nursery unit incorporated into the new school. That area is one of significant growth in the Lagan Valley constituency. St Colman’s is an excellent school, thanks to its staff, its board of governors and its principal, Gerry McVeigh, and it provides a high standard of education. Again, I urge the Minister to revisit her decision to refuse the incorporation of a pre-school unit in the new school building for St Colman’s Primary School, Lambeg.
A little further down the road towards Belfast is Seymour Hill. That area has been socially deprived over many years, sadly, because of its location. It straddles two electoral wards: Lambeg and Seymour Hill. The indices of social deprivation are based on electoral wards, and, because the Seymour Hill and Conway estates are spread across two electoral wards, the social deprivation levels are masked by the demographics of the wider area. That is why Seymour Hill has lost out.
Currently, the pre-school playgroup that is associated with Seymour Hill Primary School has funding issues. We would like the playgroup and Seymour Hill Primary School to be given greater support in recognition of the high levels of social deprivation in that area. It is interesting that the Minister for Social Development has recently designated Seymour Hill as a priority area and is examining ways in which to find additional funding.
I ask the Minister of Education to work with her colleague the Minister for Social Development to ascertain whether some of that funding could be given to pre-school educational provision. Funding is required to support the playgroup, to provide additional funded places and to address its accommodation needs, but it is also required for homework clubs, etc. The Minister mentioned homework clubs in a meeting that we attended today. In fact, that was my first meeting as a Minister. I ask the Minister of Education to look again at the pattern of pre-school educational provision in the Dunmurry area, with particular reference to Seymour Hill and Conway.
Some of my colleagues from Lagan Valley wish to contribute to the debate. We recognise that changes in education are coming. We recognise that, following the recommendations of the Bain Report, we will be looking at the rationalisation of the schools estate, the possible amalgamation of small schools, and so on. The education sector in Lisburn has indicated its willingness to engage positively in those issues. However, by the same token, it is important that the Minister recognises where there are gaps in educational provision — not least in pre-school education.
The early years are crucial in a child’s educational development. I see no good reason why children who live in villages, such as Kinallen, Waringsford, or Moira, should not have the same access to pre-school education in their local communities, at their local schools, as the children who live in Lisburn or in other parts of my constituency. Equally, where a new school is being built, as at St Colman’s, surely it makes sense to include a nursery unit for pre-school education. That would be looking to, and investing in, the future.
When preschool educational provision can make a contribution to lifting a community out of social deprivation, help develop that community, or help that community to grow — as is the case with Seymour Hill and Conway — provision should be made in those localities. Adequate support should be given to preschool facilities in such areas.
I urge the Minister to look favourably on the matters that my colleagues and I raise during the debate. The schools that I have mentioned are excellent, and they deserve support. Our younger children deserve the best start in life.

Paul Butler: Go raibh maith agat. I thank my fellow MLA for Lagan Valley for securing the debate, and I congratulate him on becoming junior Minister today. Two of the six MLAs for Lagan Valley are now Ministers.
I support what Jeffrey Donaldson has said about the provision of preschool education. The early years of a child’s life are critical in his or her development. All research shows that, before any formal schooling begins, a child has ability to learn and develop. The early intervention that preschool education represents helps equip children for later schooling. Therefore, I support fully some of the things that Jeffrey Donaldson has said about the schools that he mentioned.
Moira is a growth area of Lagan Valley, and there has been a considerable degree of housing development there. The proposal for preschool provision at that school is still with the Minister.
We should welcome the fact that the Department of Education allocates something in the region of £56 million to preschool education. There is preschool provision for well over 90% of the people of Lagan Valley. That, too, is to be welcomed.
I support the provision of a nursery unit at St Colman’s Primary School. Last year, an announcement was made about new provision there, and it makes sense to site a nursery unit at that school.
I am a councillor for the Dunmurry area, and I know that there has been a difficulty for a number of years in respect of preschool provision at Seymour Hill. It is difficult to match provision to demand in those areas. Seymour Hill Primary School and Dunmurry Primary School are within a mile of each other.
Alongside the Department of Education, preschool education is delivered by Sure Start. However, Seymour Hill Primary School is not situated in a socially deprived area, and Sure Start targets only the 20% most socially deprived. That issue must be examined.
We should welcome what the Department has done thus far: 90% coverage of the Lagan Valley constituency is not bad; and £56 million is put into preschool education. I am sure the Minister will look carefully at the issues. No decision has yet been made on Moira Primary School or St Colman’s Primary School. There is also the integrated sector to consider. Oakwood Integrated Primary School, in the Dunmurry area, also seeks a preschool educational unit.
Obviously, provision at any of those schools will affect that of other schools in the same area. That is true of Moira Primary School, and in Dunmurry, where Seymour Hill Primary School and Dunmurry Primary School are close to each another.
Difficulties also exist in rural areas. Fair Hill Primary School in Kinallen and Dromara Primary School are both excellent, but there are problems in that area with preschool provision.
I support what Jeffrey Donaldson has said on this matter. I hope that the Minister and the Department of Education will examine those issues. Go raibh maith agat.

Edwin Poots: I speak not as a Minister but as represent­ative for the Lagan Valley constituency. I congratulate my colleague Jeffrey Donaldson on becoming a Minister. I wish him well, and I trust that he will have long service and deliver as well as for the people of Northern Ireland as he has for the people of Lagan Valley.
I also congratulate him for securing a debate on an important issue that I would have championed in the previous Assembly. At that time, we had great success in securing the provision of pre-school education, which was then relatively new. Much work was done to achieve the current level of educational service. It should be a universal service, and children of pre-school age should have the opportunity to engage in the pre-school sector.
My colleague from Lagan Valley mentioned that part of his constituency that borders South Down and which is serviced mainly by Fair Hill primary school and by Drumadonnell primary school in South Down. No pre-school provision had been introduced, and, as a consequence, for many years children who live in that rural constituency had to travel for pre-school education. That is neither right nor fair and does not meet the conditions for rural proofing. It was nothing to be proud of.
Villages in that area have grown over the past 10 years. Young people in particular have bought houses in Dromara and Kinallen because Hillsborough and Lisburn have become so expensive. As a consequence, the young population in those villages has grown rapidly, and the demand for educational services — particularly pre-school and primary-school services — has increased. Pre-school education is greatly needed in the area. It has been too long a-coming, and it is crucial that it be delivered as soon as possible. I hope that it can be done in time for the new school year in September. The figures that Jeffrey Donaldson gave for Fair Hill primary school demonstrate that the numbers are there to sustain pre-school provision at that school.
To some extent, my colleague Mr Donaldson has done a school crawl; fortunately, those are the only sort of crawls that he does. However, he omitted a couple of schools that I wish to add to the list. I declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Riverdale primary school and Meadow Bridge primary school; both have pre-school playgroups that they wish to become part of their schools. The playgroups would be situated in the school grounds but would retain their independent status. That makes sense; the greater provision in one unit, the better for education, as Mr Butler pointed out.
I encourage the Minister to consider assisting the Southern Education and Library Board in ensuring that facilities can be provided in those schools to allow playgroup support to be established. Those facilities are being used for other activities, so the pre-school-age children have to attend at a later time than the children who attend primary school. The toys and games have to be taken out and put away every day because it is not a dedicated facility; it is used by other people in the community who are associated with those buildings. Therefore the children lose out because they cannot attend for a sustained period, and the staff’s time is not well used because they spend time setting up and stripping down the facilities.
I encourage the examination of those two particular facilities.
A new integrated school was set up in the Meadow Bridge area as well. I will be open about the fact that I opposed it: I did so because there were a significant number of places available at Meadow Bridge Primary School, Hillsborough Primary School and Moira Primary School in that area. As a consequence, the new school has, to some extent, undermined those schools, which are all viable, but they are all new schools, with around 400 places available.
It is important that we demonstrate our support for those schools and that we support and retain their viability and their strength. Bringing preschool provision to those schools — in the case of Moira Primary School, that means new preschool provision, and in the case of Meadow Bridge Primary School it means moving the preschool playgroup inside the perimeter of the facilities — will enable us to progress their services and help maintain and sustain the investment in education that has been made by the Department.

Jonathan Craig: I support the debate tabled by my colleague the Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson. Furthermore, I congratulate him on his rise to status of junior Minister. If colleagues here think that they are under pressure in Lagan Valley because we have three Lagan Valley MLAs in our party, I now have a Minister and a junior Minister to deal with, so I should be verging on paranoia.
The value of getting children ready to start school is well and truly recognised. Research tells us clearly that children benefit from their experiences in a high-quality preschool environment. There is already a wealth of good practice in preschool education across Northern Ireland. In partnership, we can ensure that those benefits are available to all our children.
In Lagan Valley we need action to ensure that the learning and development settings available for children are those most suitable for their age, as well as action to address key issues, including facilities and resources, training and support for special educational needs. Such actions draw on the effective preschool provision in Lagan Valley, where no decisions have been made, or actions taken by the Department and boards, in several cases regarding preschool education. Those cases have already been outlined.
Moira Primary School is a prime example. Moira was a village. It is no longer a village; it is almost a town, given the expansion that has taken place in the last 10 years. That expansion is still taking place. Only this morning I looked at even more development plans for Moira, and it will increase again beyond its boundaries. Fair Hill Primary School was mentioned. Yet again, what was a hamlet several years ago is now a small village on the outskirts of Lagan Valley, and it is developing rapidly.
All of that leads to what can only be described as the under-provision of preschool education in those areas. That is something that was not envisaged some years ago, but it is part of the changing demographics in Lagan Valley.
That aside, other areas need to be included. Both Mr Donaldson and Mr Poots mentioned several other cases for examination. One that is particularly close to my own heart is Seymour Hill. We have a playgroup there, which is funded by the parents themselves. They have worked very hard at that provision, and they deserve to be encouraged. In fact, they deserve to be supported by the Department.
Seymour Hill is a small area of deprivation that sits in an area of the Province in which there is a great deal of wealth. In that one estate there is much deprivation, especially in the education sector. I had hoped that the Minister would address that problem.
I want to see that every child gets the best possible start in life. Children and families are at the centre of what we do. Opportunities are as important at the preschool stage as at other stages in a child’s education. I want to ensure that this Assembly is committed to providing quality choices for those parents who wish their child to participate in the preschool environment.
By the time that children start to attend the preschool setting, they will already have had a variety of experiences and developed in a number of ways. In order to use, and build on, the learning that has taken place in the home and its immediate environment, adults should provide children with a rich variety of play activities and other experiences in a stimulating and challenging environment. The focus should be on allowing children to learn without experiencing a sense of failure.
Young children require a safe, secure, healthy, stimulating environment, with adequate supervision; appropriate periods of time for learning through sustained involvement in play; and adults who treat them as individuals and sensitively participate in their play. Given these needs, it follows that young children require a curriculum that meets their physical, social, emotional and cognitive needs at their particular stage of development. Their curriculum should motivate, challenge and stimulate them; and should be broad and balanced, allowing children to make choices and providing them with opportunities through play and other experiences. Unfortunately, unless more preschool places are made available in Lagan Valley, we will not provide young children with those very important requirements. That is nothing short of a disgrace, and the Minister, her Department and the boards need to investigate it as a matter of urgency.

Caitriona Ruane: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, want to welcome Mr Donaldson to his new post. I look forward to working with him in the Executive. Our first meeting today was in relation to children and young people, which is fitting. He mentioned a couple of schools; the one that I know best is St Michael’s in Finnis. The principal is a very good Gaelic player, as I am sure Mr Donaldson knows. I also listened to the points that he made about other schools, and I will be joining Stanley Poots at the teachers’ conference very soon. As the Member knows, there is a round of all the different teachers’ conferences, and I look forward to attending all of them.
I listened carefully to what everyone said. There are big issues for the Department, and for us as a society. I want to assure everyone that I am committed to ensuring that all children have the opportunity to avail themselves of preschool education, regardless of the community that they come from, of whether they come from our new communities that have come from different parts of the world, and of whether they learn through English or Irish.
In 2007-08, I have made the following resources available: Sure Start, £12 million; statutory preschool provision, £34 million; and voluntary, private, preschool provision, £10 million. That represents an overall commitment of £56 million. In addition, in the 2007 Budget I secured £8 million to enable early-years services to be funded, plus a further £8 million over the next three years for service development.
I agree with everybody who said that the first few years of a child’s life are of critical importance to their future development and well-being. It is during those early months and years that a high percentage of children’s learning takes place, attitudes are formed, first relationships are made, concepts are developed and the foundation of all later skills and learning is laid.
Tá cuid mhór fianaise ann go bhfosclaíonn bearnaí cumais go luath, i bhfad sula dtosaíonn an scolaíocht fhoirmiúil agus go mbíonn toradh ar idirghabhálacha luatha a chuidíonn le daltaí na cumais sin a fhorbairt a bheas de dhíth orthu le héirí sa tsaol agus iad i mbun a méide.
There is much evidence to suggest that ability gaps open up early, long before formal schooling begins, and that the highest returns come from early interventions that set the stage for, and develop, the abilities that are needed for success in later life.
Young children learn more effectively through play, active investigation, enquiry, first-hand experience and talk. Therefore, our provision must facilitate that, and it must involve parents, carers and staff working closely together in order to support children’s learning. Our nursery schools are one example of a quality service that supports children. The revised curriculum is bedding in and working well. I have seen some of the best examples of the revised curriculum in preschool, in the early years of primary school and in special schools. The various sectors can learn a great deal from each other.
Policy-makers have recognised that equitable access to quality early-childhood education and care can strengthen the foundation of lifelong learning for all children and support families’ broad educational and social needs. Here, early-childhood education and care refers to all-play, care and learning experiences for young children. Those experiences are provided in the voluntary, community, statutory or home-based settings under a range of programmes for which I am responsible. Those programmes include: the pre-school education expansion programme, which provides one year of high-quality, funded preschool education in the year before compulsory education for every child whose parents wish it; Sure Start, which is a targeted programme designed to ensure that all children receive a good start in life; the children and young people’s funding package, which was discussed today; early-years provision; the home-childcarer approval scheme; the early-years development fund; and the childhood sustainability fund. Traditionally in the North of Ireland, early-years services have been delivered separately by a range of professionals working in distinct education, care and health services, with responsibility resting with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Education.
Ón 1 Samhain 2006 tá mo Roinn freagrach as polasaí Luathbhlianta.
Since 1 November 2006, policy responsibility for early-years provision has rested with my Department. The Department of Education has begun to formulate a new early-childhood education and care strategy, from birth up to and including the foundation years of primary school — that is, the nought-to-six age group. That will bring Sure Start, preschool and the home-childcarer approval scheme together in a cohesive manner to support the integration of service delivery, taking into account all relevant factors and the effect that those changes will have on the lives of children and their families.
In recognition of the fact that not all actions included in an early-years strategy will be for the Department of Education to deliver, the work is being overseen by an interdepartmental group that consists of colleagues from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Social Development.
In the 2006-07 school year, my Department funded 21,154 places in preschool education; 14,158 places in statutory nursery schools or nursery classes in primary schools; 658 places in reception classes; and 6,338 places in voluntary and private preschool education centres. The actual numbers enrolled in primary 1 for the 2006-07 school year was 21,497. The school projection model predicted 21,442 primary 1 pupils in September 2007. That indicates that the preschool phase level of provision is running at 98%. Obviously, issues arise concerning geography and the provision of Irish language preschool education, and whether what is provided is sufficient. However, experience tells us that not all parents wish their child to take up a preschool place.
In the 2007-08 school year, education and library boards’ preschool education advisory groups identified a shortfall in the number of places in the voluntary sector. My Department provided additional resources in-year to make up that identified shortfall. However, demand cannot always be geographically matched to supply, so we must deal with that issue.
In Lagan Valley, there are 23 electoral wards, which cross the South Eastern and the Southern Education and Library Board areas, and the level of preschool provision in the 2007-08 school year is 92%. However, a number of places in statutory nursery schools and in nursery units that are attached to statutory primary schools are filled by children under the age of three.
That suggests that every child in their final pre-school year who applied for a place got one, as statutory settings are required in the arrangements for admissions to give priority consideration to children in their final pre-school year.
In addition, Members will wish to note that SEELB returned funding in respect of 35 unused places in the 2007-08 school year; and although SELB does not represent a significant area of the Lagan Valley constituency, it returned funding in respect of 167 unused places.
I listened to the four Members who spoke in the Adjournment debate and I will take their comments on board. I am considering a development proposal for Moira primary school that will take account of all pertinent issues.
In deciding budget priorities, the Department of Education held consultation meetings to ensure that all equality aspects were considered fully and that relevant groups had an opportunity to contribute. All funding will be based on equality processes and equality impact assessments. It is good that there have been improvements in early-years provision. There is still a way to go, but I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Executive on the issue.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Will the Minister give way?

Caitriona Ruane: I would rather finish my speech. I will, as ever, consider proposals carefully, and I will listen carefully to the arguments.
Adjourned at 5.56 pm.